Updates Index

Our calling in the end times is to watch, to stay close to Jesus, to speak up about Him in the spiritual war, and to rejoice when the time finally arrives.

I personally have a problem speaking about Jesus to strangers now, though at first I had a lot of zeal in that way. I've learned that there's no use banging our heads against the wall with people whom God has either not called, or isn't ready yet to convert. It's very possible that God has a time and person for the conversion of each one whom He intends to save. If you hesitate (as I do) or feel discomfort sharing Jesus "cold" with others because people today get testy / nasty when you try, you can always bypass the discomfort by sharing online. There's a million ways to give Him his share of your words online. Pick any topic, and I'm sure you can work Jesus into the conversation one way or the other. You don't want to overdo it if your readership is usually a Christian one, because Christians don't need the basic messages of salvation over and over again...which is what makes some Pentecostal church services a lot shallow for the believers.

We all are given our specific gifts, and while we are not all asked to evangelize cold, there's something to be said about Jesus' words where he says that he will be ashamed of us if we are ashamed of him. Is fear / neglect of speaking about Him the same as being ashamed? I've wondered. At first, I spoke out liberally, and learned first-hand how people will abuse you right there and then. Their tactic is likely to make us uncomfortable so that we stop trying. At first, it was an exciting challenge to speak to people I had at least met before, but soon the excitement became a cold, block wall with most everyone. I started to get upset at some of my fellow townspeople when handing out tracts at a mall. And the ones bumping into my life who seemed superficially interested could fail to turn out with a deep root, suggesting that we may be making the wrong converts (goats?) when we do it on our own power. I therefore quit systematic evangelism...hoping I didn't do the wrong thing, and simply remained open for God signal that he wants me to pipe up with a certain person.

When you think of it, the percentage of the local population (anywhere) that will be added to the True Church in the next year may be one percent or less, meaning that God needs to use only one person per 100 believers, or fewer, to convert souls with deep roots (i.e. written in the Book of Life) over the course of the next year. From that perspective, not only does it seem to be a waste of money to pay missionaries and evangelism organizations, but there seems to me to be no use for every church member to go door-to-door as do the Jehovah's Witnesses. We know that they do so regularly, yet make very, very few converts. Or, for every convert, one slips away from them, and the organization barely grows. The same non-growth can be said for many good churches, probably because God has already saved more than 95 percent, per generation or per any one time, of those He's slated to call. No one had to knock on my door to save me. No one had to evangelize me on the street to save me. God has many other options.

In John 15, Jesus says that we can do nothing unless we remain in him. That's a blanket statement needing explanation. We can do all sorts of worldly things apart from Jesus, and so we realize that he meant things having value with God. Yet, a non-Christian is able to give a glass of water to his enemy to fulfill the words of Jesus at times. Still, in John 15, Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches of the vine; unless we remain are as branches, we can do nothing, he says. His intent may be seen as our complete failure in service to God if we tear ourselves away from him. Yet, I have always taken his words to mean that, if we neglect remaining in Him, there will be no fruit for God because our works will be on our own powers, and not specifically the work of God. But again, if we do a kindness for someone, that is obedience to God, and Jesus promises that we will not lose our reward, meaning that we have produced some fruit, apparently.

I can assume that "you can do nothing" refers to works touching upon the souls of others, as per their salvation and the way they view / treat God. The soul is an area where only God can produce fruit, I gather, and we are either moved by God to produce that fruit, or we are not. Therefore, even if we remain in Jesus, I see it possible and even likely that, if we initiate and complete an evangelism work on our, it is a dead work. The other soul doesn't get what it needs to find the true Jesus. It may find a false Jesus of his own imagination, one that reflects what he heard about Jesus, but unless God touches the soul, it cannot "know" Jesus. Only by remaining can we produce fruit, but remaining doesn't necessarily mean that all our works are God's works. That's how I see it.

And what does "remain in me" mean? Doesn't it have to do with KNOWING the Holy Spirit by personal contact with him? Does "remain in me" get fulfilled when we declare that we follow or believe in Jesus? Or is it some way that we reach out to the Spirit with our own spirits? One thing I can say, we all know it when we decide to forsake Jesus. "Remain in me" may mean, do not walk away, keep on worshiping, honoring, and loving (obeying) God, and he will find the opportunities for us to produce fruit so that we will have our share of rewards when Jesus appears. So, don't give up, or we will then be ashamed at his Coming.

The churches growing fast are often the false-prophet / prosperity-gospel ones, and we know why they grow, because they make shallow / goat converts, convincing them that Jesus serves their wants rather than vice-versa. Goats will go from church to church, possibly seeking business deals and opposite sex...or even a high position (of honor) in the church organization. So, because they go from church to church, the game is on, for the charismatic (fanciful) preachers, to lure them into their own churches. A way to lure serious believers is to convince them that God is really-really working in this particular church. Resist churches that regularly make such boasts. It's got to be part of their game. Wherever there is plenty of church money used for evangelism, that's where I fear plenty of fruitless evangelism, and the revolving door where one person leaves Jesus as another is sucked in.

Love is the best method of "luring" people. If all you have is love, that's the right stuff for bringing in the right people. Don't even mention the word, money, and, dimwits, don't take up a collection during the church service. Are you crazy? Can't you get your money more privately than by coercing it from the membership while everyone else looks on? That really stinks, and causes outsiders to see a conflict of interest. Christian love. What is it? A show of being a sweetheart? When a new person arrives at a church, is love to introduce yourselves and make the person feel welcome for the first few services until the person gets to feeling like a natural part of the affair? What comes after that? Well, the person is conditioned to sit in his regular spot, and like everyone else there is sharing of words with one another, Sunday after Sunday. And people can be on their best behavior for to win themselves a good reputation.

But I define love as concern. That's what it is, isn't it? And concern for others must go beyond Sunday attitude or Sunday depth. Pry a little. Find out what people need in case you can deliver, and the Lord will see this, chalk it up for your rewards, if you deliver. Do people need an ear, a visit, companionship because they are not the most popular? You get it. That's love. Can you make them happy often? Can you show that you really care? Not if you don't deliver. But watch out that you don't over-visit, or over-help, for some people will start to show coldness, not at all meaning that you are the one necessarily doing wrong. Some people just don't want you or others around too often. Human chemistry can be touch and go. Others might want you around more often than you show up.

In John 15, Jesus says that the Father will cut off all vine branches that produce no fruit. It's a clever picture to use. And he goes on to say that no one can produce fruit unless they remain in the Vine. The first requirement, therefore, is to remain in Jesus. The implication is that those who forsake Jesus will be cut off, and naturally they will produce no fruit specifically because they are cut off. We can hereby get the wrong impression that God may choose to forsake us. The reality seems to be that God forsakes those who first forsake Jesus. To be safe, or at least safer, grapple with what it may mean to remain in Jesus. If we don't grapple with it, and if we don't think much about Jesus, chances are that we are not a richly-planted seed. We will wither away, which means that we will forsake Jesus.

In 15:16, Jesus says that we can ask for anything in his name, and receive it, providing that we are bearing fruit that will last. He doesn't say fruit only, but fruit that lasts. In fact, the Greek word for "last" is a version of the "remain" used earlier in the chapter. Jesus was adding to his words, for clarification, teaching that bearing temporary fruit doesn't count. We can't ask anything from God, to receive it, when it comes to temporary fruit, for God will not be in it. Plus, if we are wise, we can glean that Jesus is not preaching a prosperity gospel here, as if to say that, providing we bear lasting fruit, we can ask God for a personal jet, and receive one. To the wise, Jesus is saying that, for lasting fruit, we can ask God anything toward fulfilling that work, and it will be done. In essence, he's saying that, when converting or working with lasting fruit, we and the Father are in oneness. The Father is doing the work through us. Now that's blessed, but it can't happen often to any of us in converting souls unless there are a lot of souls being converted who will last.

So, it's tricky, and confusing. We may not readily know whether God is working through us as we share Jesus. We may wonder why the friend we share with isn't understanding things the way that Jesus is supposed to be known, and we may feel that we've got to keep trying because it may happen in the future. Or, it just may never happen. It's sad, especially when this occurs with close family members. At other times, God may be planting small steps to someone's conversion through us, but this can be done in a sentence or two out of our mouths, at a specific time, no use banging our heads against the wall if the timing isn't right for the full conversion.

We might say that evangelism projects and missionary agencies have plenty of woodpeckers. Usually, it pecks and finds no food, but, the odd time, there's food under that bark. Therefore, evangelists will argue that they've got to keep trying, because they never know when they will come up with lasting fruit. I can be agreeable with this so long as they evangelize on their own dime (i.e. for free), but it's when other Christians give them money so that they can evangelize that I strongly disagree. I would find it sinful to have you buy my food, pay my mortgage, and raise my kids, just so I get to be a woodpecker. Will I have any rewards from God if I receive money from others to do "God's work"? Wouldn't that money be used better for aging widows of the church, etc? The apostle Paul seemed horrified with taking money from others while he built the gentile churches.

So, when a prosperity gospelite tries to convince you to send them a hundred bucks for "God's work," be wise. But what about money requests from missionary agencies asking through local churches? Don't they employ woodpeckers? Isn't it possible that such woodpeckers go an entire year without one lasting-fruit convert? That's a lot of money dished out just to make one convert that God could have converted without a dime in donations. If God uses some missionaries to make some lasting converts, it could be due to feeling sorry for them, by which I mean to say that God feels for all the vain work they did, with the wrong converts, and sends them some blessings. But my point still stands that, had these missionaries not existed, the same converts would have been made without fail, for Jesus says that not one name will be missing from the Resurrection who's been chosen by the Father. The work of God in converting souls has not been placed on our backs, but is rather His work.

Multiply the one missionary couple by the countless ones the world over who are paid to work in countries already having Christians that can be used of God for less than one dime per convert. Does that seem like a strategy that a perfect God would initiate or call for?

"Go into all the nations" was a command expressly for the apostles at a time when the nations had no Christians. But, as we can see in the epistles of Paul, this call to the believers was not stressed (by Paul) just one generation after Jesus. There were surely some evangelists chosen to continue into cities not yet having a church, but, eventually, when Christians were everywhere, there was less need to uproot families from one city into another. Where is the "mission field," exactly, today? It is wise to use money advantageously, but it seems to me that to plant a foreign missionary family where local Christians already exist is not a wise use of money, nor does it seem a wise move for any reason. Someone will argue that a saved soul is worth more than $50,000 spent on missionaries, but this argument is built specifically to neglect the points I've just made.

It is wise to just make yourself available to God in whatever worldly situation you find yourself. If you are remaining in Jesus, then God can change your worldly situation, or not, and you simply work from there when God works through you. I would argue that, when God works through you, it doesn't feel like work at all, but rather it's a pleasure. But I can imagine missionaries loathing to go out and do a day's work where all is expected to be vanity, day after day. Now that's awful work, in my opinion, a banging of your head against the bark of a dead tree. On the other hand, where missionaries are not paid to do their work, I can see them enjoying it no matter what the outcome.

Jesus himself did a lot of vain preaching in the sense that not all believed his word, but we may assume that, if Jesus opened his mouth, there was some fruit with at least one person. And fruit isn't necessarily making a convert. The greater work is to feed the flock, to care for it, and this is where we ought to be most of the time. For example, my hope is that through these very words, God will produce fruit, by which I mean to say that God, I hope, has written some of these words for the sake of a specific reader or even a few. This page will remain online for a long time, and it's available to God in that way. If you can teach the Word, you can produce some fruit online. If you start writing, you just never know when God speaks your words.

Be comforted in the war at large. When you lay your head down to sleep, be in Jesus. Find your comfort in the Holy Spirit. Don't worry about your worldly affairs, and don't have passion for making lots of money. This is what it means to remain in Jesus, first of all to be conscious of him, and to speak to Him, to the Father too, and to be thankful for Holy Spirit's loyalty to you, because the Father wants him loyal to you...if you remain in Jesus. This is The Way.

Similarly, in church, if you are mindful of feeding the flock, you can open your mouth, and you never know when God is floating some needed words into some ears. The greatest need today is to remain loyal to Jesus because the devils are furious that their time is almost up. They no longer feel relaxed, as they might have four thousand years ago, but are fearful. There's no telling how they will react in their end-time anxieties; we can guess that they will seek to rob us of our Faith.

Woe is me if I do things only to score points with God. Isn't that selfish? First of all, I had better get my doctrine right or I'll be more like dropping poop on God's turf. Secondly, I should genuinely be concerned. Along with coldness and falling away in end-time believers, there will be false doctrine. The two can be considered related. That is, because people are eating false doctrine, they are snipped out of the Vine. Once snipped, they don't feel a connection with God, and therefore they cease believing in the Head. So, we can predict that demons and apostates will teach wrong doctrine that, instead of leading converts to closeness with the Spirit, leads to other things, for example the expectation that Jesus serves our interests.

Correct doctrine is that Jesus serves those who serve Him, but also that the service from Jesus is in helping us to produce fruit for God, which in turn makes us closer with Him, and also builds for us a richer welcome into the Next Age. Correct doctrine includes giving up our own ambitions, and working an occupational job without ambitions. There is a difference between selfish ambition and responsibility. We need to be responsible by purchasing a home and getting it paid off before we retire. But if we start to plot the finer things in that home and in life, we are getting off track. It's not always clear-cut black and white, but we deceive ourselves at our own peril. And it is a peril to deceive ourselves.

You know it when you are chasing ambitions versus sacrificing them. If you sacrifice them, won't God notice? Isn't losing our lives the starting point to producing fruit? First thing's first: lose your own life, and be a partner with Jesus. We've heard Christians say, "I give all I have to God." I have news for you: God doesn't want anything we have to offer. Instead, let the Spirit change us, and we don't understand His work a lot of the time. It's okay to tell the Father that you feel frightened for your timidity or other weaknesses, but instead of hiding behind them as an excuse to do nothing, ask, whenever it comes to mind, that He helps you to conform. In how ever you feel that you are coming up short in the service department, let your Father know that you're dealing with it, admitting and laying it out onto his table. Last I heard, the Father is compassionate.

I love the Father. He really is able to deal with our weaknesses. After we have struggled, and because he watches and gets into our shoes, knowing what little we are, He can bring strength, which amounts to hope and finally into appreciation for Him. It is very rewarding, if we wait for it, to remain in Jesus through the hard and weak times. The Father rewards our endurance (big part of our service), and accepts our apologies for not enduring better than we did. I always say, next time, Lord, I will do better. But I don't. Not much, anyway.

I personally don't do well under duress. I don't like unnecessary discomforts from demons playing tricks on me. I'd rather have an axe to slice off their heads on the spot. I found myself praying a few months ago, asking whether I can later visit my personal demons in Hell to torment them personally. I assume that we all have demons either assigned to tripping us up, or who move close and choose to take us on. If you know what I'm talking about, you know that they are mind-attacking imps seeking non-stop to destroy us. They violate our wills, and without our permission send evil signals to our minds. Paul said that they seek to devour us. I don't understand Peter when he implied that we should not slander them. Is it slander to call them deceivers, imps, bone-headed beasts? How do we wrongfully slander the fallen angels? Jesus called them filthy.

I suppose what Peter meant was that, if not for God, the demons would eat us alive, and we need to respect that, not tempt them to attack us harsher by ridiculing them. Instead of attacking them ourselves, we do so with God in the picture: "the Lord rebuke you." But I said, "Lord, at the Resurrection, could I visit the demons who tormented me, and have a little chat with them?" That way, the more they torment us now, the more we punish them when we have the upper hand.

What is there to endure to the end but demons and their temptations through this lusty world? Yet, I don't see this world as being lusty at all. I have no desire for Broadway or Las Vegas or the best / brightest things this world has to offer. It's all garbage to me now. But, careful, everyone may have a breaking point. Our end-time job is to be a lot like Job. If our world-affairs lives fall apart, don't blame it on God. Stay with Him, and count your life to be all that's within you. If you suffer something very harsh, and you haven't deserved it, it could be because God counts you with high esteem. Makes no sense? Yes, I think it does. The ones who have much with God will be wrecked the most to refine them all-the-better. I don't like it, but God has chosen suffering to refine us. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I may as well start looking forward to my next tribulation-trial, for it is surely coming.

The good news, I'm more than half way through my earthly troubles as a believer. The bad news, I get no rewards for enduring my pains prior to when I was a believer. The sooner we start the "race" to the Next Age, the sooner we start building rewards. We are to endure the games demons play on us, and the pitfalls this world of men dish-out our way. If we suffer for our own bad decisions, it burns the most. The worst decision is to be grossly negligent with God.

Get it out of your mind that rewards with God has to do with how big your mansion will be. Don't make me laugh. Rewards for serving God take place even now. When we bring pleasure to God, God shares that pleasure with us in our beings. Jesus said that he had food to eat that his fledgling disciples didn't yet know anything about. It was an inner intake that a mansion (has no life or brain) is incapable of providing. Seek the Inner Intake, and you shall find. The Living Waters of the Creator of the universe, private within you. Does it appeal to you? Then go get it. Don't quit until you get it. You'll find it faster than you think if you try...if God has chosen you. Not all who seek are of the lasting type, but all the lasting type will seek it.

In John 17, we have a long prayer from Jesus. I wish I knew how John knew of this prayer. Was Jesus praying in the hearing of John? Was it more a sermon than a prayer? In verse 2, at the start of the prayer, we read that Jesus was given authority over the human race because God wanted him to be a harsh dictator. Do you see how funny that sounds? Anyone reading it knows it just isn't true. What does it really say? It says that Jesus was appointed the master of all humanity so that he could grant the opportunity of Eternal Life for the Long Lasters. That sounds a lot better, and it even sounds like we can relish in it. Eternal life, FOR YOU AND ME. Wow. That's nothing to sneeze at.

We then start to wonder about the quality of that eternal life. How great will it be? Or will it be boring, as demons would have us think? Never mind eternal life with Jesus, go to the flashing lights of Las Vegas instead, see those beautiful ladies with their fine legs. Stupid, the flashing lights are there to lure you, so that the wicked can take your hard-earned money five or ten times faster than you worked to make it. And once you've seen those dancing legs, it's over, your reward has been had. Stupid.

In verse 3, eternal life is defined as KNOWing the Father. It's the Attachment Factor, the partnership, the everlasting oneness. If you can't last with Jesus for one human lifetime, how can you live forever as one with Him? But if you approve of being one with him in a human lifetime, or what's left of it, then you prove that you can be one with Him forever. You either like it or you don't. If you don't like it here, you won't like it there, I assume. Over there, no more demons to trip us up, no more suffering to refine us, no more death to worry about, it sounds like a great start. What else is there? KNOWING God. Do you lament that God seems far from your prayers now? Isn't God hiding Himself from even the best of believers? Yes, to a large degree. God refused to show himself to Moses because there is a set time for his unveiling, and it's going to be a lot better than any Las-Vegas show. How can you compare the sinners on stage there with the Creator of the Universe?

In the same prayer, Jesus mentions the glory he had before the world began. Later, in very 24, he prays that all people whom the Father has given to him should see the glory of Jesus. Apparently, what Moses was not allowed to see, he will see at the Resurrection. We can only wonder as to what this sight will be, because it's behind a curtain until Then. It seems useless / misleading to even venture a guess, but if God knew beforehand that it will be disappointing to us, He wouldn't promise it as something special. By not showing Moses, and by telling us that Moses couldn't see the glory, we know that it won't be disappointing. God will not be embarrassed on that Unveiling. I feel the inclination to say that no one can see all of God at anyone "sitting." The revelation of the Creator may be an eternal thing. Our knowing him may grow forever larger. One day, we may even be able to understand how God could exist in the first place. But to those who run Las Vegas, there is no God, for he will not even begin to reveal himself to them on this earth. And they will never know God.

This prayer was the end of Jesus' long words with his disciples before he went out to be arrested. This is The Mighty Man. Knowing that his time had come, yet he spoke with eternal concern for his friends, his chief partners in the war against satan, and shared with them things that we find valuable to this day. Jesus lives by a light far higher than our own wits, and "higher" is the appropriate word to use. There is no describing Jesus in full, for he is a copy of the Creator, whom no one knows but a tip only. To this Tip we cling, our Deposit paid by Jesus, on our behalf, for the Future Purchase on the Day of Delivery. Jesus will deliver because he loves us, is concerned for us. He will not abandon us to the grave. What more than this do our enemies think that drives us in Faith? This is the Ultimate, salvation from death. Why don't they want it? Because, the Father remains hidden from them, because he does not like them. If they changed their ways, or at least showed that they want to, for Jesus' sake, the Father would act accordingly.

In John 16, Jesus says that, unless he leaves this earth, Christians would not be able to receive the Holy Spirit. What's that mean? Why can't the Spirit of God come to us while Jesus is still on earth? I get the impression that the Spirit melts with Jesus, then returns into our hearts as a Jesus-Father combination. I see awe in that. Later in chapter 16, Jesus tells his disciples that the Spirit will take from what belongs to Jesus, and by this the Spirit will tell it to the disciples / all Christians. Isn't Jesus implying that Jesus has something that the Spirit does not yet have? What could that be? Shouldn't it have to do with the Crucifixion? The best way I explain this, to myself, anyway, is that the Holy Spirit, as per that role of the Spirit in entering within Christians, comes to us as the Crucified Jesus. Look out. And the Crucified Jesus knows what humanity is first-hand, our weaknesses, our peculiarities, our waywardness, our everything. His job is to keep us on the True Track to the end. He wins for us against the devils who come against us. This is the practical side of salvation, the works of Jesus in and through us. Our job is to be willing, to try, to be one with Him.

I can understand that the fallen / rebellious angels would have us doubt that the Spirit has come to us. But this must be part of Jesus' job, to convince us, somehow, that he has entered us, and remains in us so long as we remain with him. If you have that evidence, don't you feel extra-special? Where most people are rejected, you got Picked for some reason that you can't understand. How lucky are you? As lucky as avoiding everlasting death, and whatever else goes with it. But "lucky" is the wrong term to use, because, I believe, the Father chooses those whom he knows beforehand will cling to Jesus until the end. Those who are rejected are those whom God knows beforehand will choose, for one reason or another, to abandon / betray the Son. And you not only get to escape death, but to partake in whatever New Life the Father has in store (never revealed before). It's the difference between the Uppermost Heaven and the floor of hell.

In 16:23, a seemingly important key that we may have missed. It says that, after the Holy Spirit comes into them, the disciples will not ask Jesus for anything. Instead, as 24 says, we will ask the Father for anything in Jesus' name, and will receive it. So, ask the Father, not Jesus, but in Jesus' name. It sounds a bit like a technicality, but that's what it says. And, please, do not interpret these words with the emphasis on "anything," as though we can ask for a jet, and, so long as we say, "In Jesus' name," we will receive it. You know that can't be what Jesus meant. Instead, he meant this: "Ask for anything that is of mine (my name), and you will receive it. "Anything in my name" is to be understood as anything belonging / pertaining to His will / plan. Tell the prosperity gospelites how wrong they are for mischaracterizing this scripture.

I've never really known whether or not we must always speak, "in Jesus' name," after every prayer, or whether it's to be understood in the prayer so that it goes without saying. Many or most Protestant church prayers end in, "in Jesus' name we pray, amen." I don't know how Catholics end their prayers, but do know that they are encouraged, from the pope down, to pray to Mary and even the Catholic "saints" (all true believers are saints). This is so far amiss from God's will that it's deemed rebellion in my mind. Such Catholics are in grave danger of being left in darkness, in my opinion. It's dangerous when the modern popes / cardinals alter their age-old traditions to conform more to those of evangelical doctrines, for the purpose is to keep Catholics trapped in the Roman church. Pray to God through Jesus and you will stand a chance of being blessed, even if you ask what God cannot grant.

And we do ask for earthly things that may or may not be of Jesus' will. When we encounter troubles, it may or may not be time for Jesus to eradicate those troubles. When we ask for the conversion of a son or daughter, God's hands may be tied, at the time, by the rebellion of that person prayed for. We cannot score an answered prayer on each occasion, unless we are so lucky that we always pray what is in Jesus' will at the time. Do you have cancer? Pray not only for healing, but that God may not allow you to endure a lot more than you can bear, if it comes to death and pain.

When the Spirit enters us, there is a question on whether it's like water pouring into water to become one, or a glass of water attached to, or beside, another glass of water. There is a big difference. Perhaps, while we are in earth's bodies, it's not yet the water into water. To put it another way: while we are here, we are still our individual selves, being coached by Jesus-God beside us, but at the Resurrection, we each become one with Him in a blend. I'm just guessing. It sounds very nice.

The saddest thing in history is that God allows death, a lot of it, and often with pain and horror. But true-to-the-end Christians may be relieved of most the pain and horror. It may depend on whether we suffer a painful death as repayment for rebellion while we were believers. That happens, I assume. We can do terrible things for which God calls for ultimate punishment, not immediately, but later, and perhaps nothing we say or cry can lift or alleviate that curse. Yet, I read that God is also compassionate and merciful i.e. there is always the chance that he will go easier on our sins if we show genuine remorse.

I like talking to Jesus. I don't think he meant to say that we must always talk to the Father and not to him. I frankly can't see how it matters, but for requests, we may as well stick to asking the Father. I've sometimes asked Jesus to ask the Father on my behalf. Is that wrong?

Here's what's wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksvEPpi-MTk

Trump News

Not long ago, we heard that James Comey altered his official view of Clinton's email scandal from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless." In legal / political jargon, there's a big difference between the two phrases. We now learn that the upgrade for Clinton was from the deputy chief of a FBI spy nest, the very nest that was handling the scandal, Peter Strzok. This man was deemed such a hot potato by Mueller himself that he was fired by Mueller, and demoted to some other part of the FBI (this was back in the summer). Apparently, Mueller was trying to hide him, but Mueller just got caught. The story broke just as Mueller presented his wee-little gnat against Flynn last week. Pressure on Mueller has so built that he's now got to come out soon with his best shots against Trump, but he may not be ready to make his fabricated case very well, because things have not been going well at all. If he tries and blows it, he will be a laughing stock. Already, he's made things much worse for Hillary because, whatever measure of justice he uses to pounce on individuals of the Trump team, the same measure will be expected against Hillary's crimes.

It appears that Strzok is a big deep-state hen. "CNN has also learned that Strzok was the FBI official who signed the document officially opening an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to sources familiar with the matter. As the No. 2 official in counterintelligence, Strzok was considered to be one of the bureau's top experts on Russia." Trump will want the hen investigated.

To make matters worse for the hen, the anti-Trump messages between Strzok and Lisa Page were between two people in the act of adultery, a thing that's not being reported much by leftist media. Another thing that's not being reported with the Strzok story is the name of the number-one rooster in the FBI nest to which Strzok previously belonged. That nest is called, Counterintelligence, and Wikipedia's article on it (says next to nothing) names only the top rooster, I assume: "The Counterintelligence Division is headed by Assistant Director, who reports to the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI National Security Branch. The CURRENT [caps mine] Assistant Director is C. Frank Figliuzzi, who was appointed by FBI Director Robert Mueller on February 7, 2011". It sounds as though Figliuzzi is number three at the FBI, under the Executive Assistant Director who is himself under the Director. Yeah, so, all three, and with Strzok as the fourth, might together have been partners in crime with Obama, Holder, and Clinton.

Even though Wikipedia has an article on Figliuzzi, it doesn't put a link to it in the article with the quote above. His Wikipedia article says that he quit his Assistant-Director post (Washington DC) on July 31, 2012, possibly suggesting that he's an acting Assistant Director at this time, which in-turn suggests that the last Assistant Director was let go. If so, we wonder when, why, and what his name was. Was he let go by Christopher Wray? Why would Wray fill the spot with Figliuzzi, a Mueller appointee in 2011? It seems to me that if Figliuzzi is the official (not acting temporarily) Assistant Director now, it should be mentioned in his Wikipedia article, yet he is not so mentioned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Frank_Figliuzzi

A possibility is that Wikipedia's counterintelligence article has been deliberately not updated in five years at the request of the FBI, the latter not wishing to expose the new Assistant Director(s). When on MSNBC, just before the arrest of Manafort, Figliuzzi supported Mueller as an honest man.

Our hen turns out to have been the overseer of the attack on Flynn. This is from an article with headline, "Top Clinton Aids Face No Charges After Making False Statements to the FBI." "The FBI agent who was fired from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team for sending anti-Donald Trump text messages conducted the interviews with two Hillary Clinton aides accused of giving false statements about what they knew of the former secretary of state’s private email server. Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements, which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok."
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/

It can't get better than this for exposing the politicization of the FBI, on the side of the devil and his liberals. This has been followed in the news with the super announcement that Mueller is now going after Trump's loan money. This is where Trump can justifiably, we hope, burn the henhouse down. Reuters claimed Tuesday that Mueller subpoenaed some of Trump's bank records, but Trump's press secretary said (same day) Jay Sekulow denied that any subpoenas came in for any bank records.

"[Strzok] was appointed to supervise that [Flynn] effort at the end of July 2016, just weeks after the conclusion of the Clinton email probe. CNN reported on Monday that as the FBI’s No. 2 counterintelligence official, Strzok signed the documents that officially opened the collusion inquiry." It appears that the Mueller playbook is right-on cue last month with the pressure on Flynn. The purpose, last year, we may assume, was to get Flynn to make some false statements. This is the terrorist situation set up by the liberal spy powers of the FBI, which can be utilized to cause any would-be victim to make a false statement, with spy proof beforehand. The spies already know the truth, and they couch their questions in such a way as to scare the victim first, and then make lead him to lie to protect himself against what he was frightened about.

And Trump now has personal reason for attacking the hen, for it is now pegged as hatching Russia collusion itself: "Then, Strzok reportedly signed the document launching the 2016 investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election and whether the Trump campaign played any role. After leading the FBI’s probe into Trump, he then joined Robert Mueller’s special counsel team as an integral investigator. Thus, it appears that one man with a strident political agenda accomplished his twin goals of clearing Clinton and accusing Trump, evidence be damned. And then he was caught" (Gregg Jarret, Fox news). That's how it all went down.

God Appears Involved with the Strzok Revelation

At this point I'd like to mention again that God definitely gave me a dream where I was playing pool in Obama's billiard hall. When I was set to take my shot, there was a page on the table acting as the cue ball. It was impossible to shoot because it was flat on the table, and so I turned it into an airplane, and then shot it toward a red ball sitting next to a corner pocket. But the airplane went straight into the pocket without hitting any balls, which is called a sewer. The very next act in the dream was in the billiard hall's back yard, where Obama was in a dark SUIT, and it just so happens that there is a Sewer surname listed with SUITs/SUTERS. This was part of the proof that God gave that dream, but there was more proof, including evidence that other dreams were taking place at that general time from God.

The first thing Obama did in his dark suit was to dance, followed by skating on a skate board. This clinched the dream from God because his mother was Miss Dunham while Dunhams, first found in the same place as Skate's, use a so-called DANCEtte. On top of these things, the dream started with a large black SHEET covering all the billiard tables, and the Skate surname comes up as "SHEET", if you can believe this. But there is more, for, as per the skateBOARD, I checked the Board surname (use Sewer link above to view) to find a version of the Sewer/Suit/Suter surname, as well as an antelope in Crest, the symbol also of the Singletary Crest. It's known that Obama's mother descended from Jonathan Singletary, who changed his surname to Dunham.

But there is more, for the Singletary surname shares white-on-red footless martlets with the Board surname. And there is yet more, for the descriptions page below tells that the Singletary Crest is "A black demi antelope platee..." (heraldic plates are white roundels), which should be code for Plate liners while a Plain surname brings up the Platers.
http://www.free-coat-of-arms.com/

The point in repeating all of this is the page on the table and my turning it into a plane before sewering it. Suddenly, the fact that Mr. STRzok, with a SUTER-like surname, made the news last week precisely because he was texting / emailing with Lisa PAGE, appears possibly as the reason for God's granting of the dream. And we can already figure that both Page and Strzok were Obama tools while the airplane may be code for Bill Clinton's meeting, in an airplane, with Loretta Lynch. In other words, the dream can be hinting that Lisa Page was much about the Clinton-Lynch scandal. Lisa Page is an FBI employee too. "During the Clinton investigation [a non-starter], Strzok was involved in a romantic relationship with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who worked for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to the [anonymous] people familiar with the matter..." (Washington Post). Page, like Strzok, were on Mueller's team for to rob Trump of his presidency, and so we can assume that the two were very-hot potatoes.

The mystery, however, is that while the Washington Post is known to be a CIA press-release tool, it was the Post and the New York Times together who broke the Strzok-Page story, a thing we just don't expect. It's possible, I suppose, for the Washington Post / NY Times to have some free-wheeler reporters who at times get out stories not winked at by the CIA. The other option (doesn't seem likely) is that the CIA and/or Mueller team wanted to leak the Strzok-Page story for some sinister purpose not yet realized. We may perhaps learn (by intended leaks) of some of the Strzok-Page correspondence, and, we can expect, it's harmful to Trump. The better theory is that The Post and Times released the story because they realized it was inevitable for public disclosure anyway, for, as Fox writes: "The Department of Justice inspector general, Michael Horowitz, discovered the electronic texts Strzok exchanged with his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. The messages were so politically incendiary and so threatened the integrity of Mueller’s investigation that Strzok was quietly canned over the summer from the special counsel team, where he was a pivotal participant."

The House Intelligence Committee wants answers and claims that Mueller and the FBI are stonewalling their requests for more information as to how biased Strzok was. We want to know what Strzok and Mueller discussed, for example, over emails.

The theory on the dream's meaning having to do with the Strzok-Page relationship rests on whether God needed to use a scene that could indicate to me the STR-like Suter surname by one of its variations. I played a lot of billiards in my teens, and readily knew that a so-called scratch includes a sewer. But the dream's SUIT and skateBOARD is what really nailed the Sewer/Suter surname as God's intention, which simultaneously linked things to Obama's surnames. From the beginning of the dream, I instinctively knew that Obama was part-owner of the billiard hall. In the dream, I did not know who the other partner was.

The tables, which I saw from a top view, were laid out in the shape of a 'L'. This is when I saw the tables covered in a black sheet of a hard kind, like plywood rather than a bed-sheeting type. I've told about he L-shape before, but never had a theory as to what it could mean, until now: Loretta Lynch. Amazing. The two rows of tables that formed the L-shape had one row longer than the other, just as an 'L' does."

I've already told that the Billiard/Hillard surname suggests the Clintons on two counts, one being the BLYTHE surname that Bill Clinton was born with, for French Billiards are also BILLETs. There was also the theory that the billiard hall could be code for Pools, because there is a Poole location in England at roughly the mouth of the Stur river, a term like "Suter / STRzok." The Sturs surname was first found in the area of the Stur river.

Here's from my first update of last February: "I have the feeling that I'll be coming back to this page when the meaning in the real world occurs to me. The sheet over the billiard tables was in the shape of an 'L.' The longer part was owned by someone else, and Obama owned the shorter part to the side. I didn't hear who it was that owned the longer part..." Here's from the second update of last February:

Something phenomenal took place last week. A dream, explained late in the last update. As some are not expected to get to the end of the update, let me go over the dream here. The explanation in the last update is drawn over much writing because I had to find the meanings behind the symbols, and in the meantime, I was sidetracked, as always.

There was a billiard hall owned partly by Obama. I cannot recall some faint things taking place as the dream started, nor how I knew at that time that it was owned by Obama. The first vivid thing I recall was a black sheet covering all the billiard tables. There is no other word for this black item: it was a hard, solid sheet, not the drape kind.

Next, I was at a table with a pool cue in my hand, and leaning over to shoot the cue ball, but the ball was a piece of paper [I maybe should have said SHEET of paper], with a small arc so that the middle of the paper was about a quarter inch off the table. I was eyeing a ball at the other end of the table, beside the corner pocket, an easy shot, but, no good, I can't shoot a piece of paper. So I made the paper into an airplane and shot it, but it missed the ball and rifled into the pocket, a sewer, as they call it in a billiard hall.

Next, Obama was in a dark suit dancing like a pro in a theater (Dunhams use a dancette), raising his one leg, then turning and going the other way, to be followed by the same dark-suited Obama on a skateboard, going up a curved / arched ramp with a mirror image, it seemed, of himself. That is, two men, exactly alike, beside one another, were on skateboards, doing the same stunt simultaneously, and exactly alike. Explanations for all of these things are in the last update; I won't go over everything again here.

Note the ARCHed ramp and the arc in the piece of paper, for while I said that Obama was in a DARK suit because it wasn't quite black, it just so happens that a Dark surname is also the D'Arque surname, said to be from Arcis.

I wasn't saying that Obama was in a theater, but dancing like a theatrical pro. I instinctively knew that he was at the BACK, outdoors of the billiard hall, and the dream's last scene was Obama not happy with a young employee whose BACK was toward me. I still don't know what that part means, but it's very interesting that a Stur-like steer is used by German Backs/Bachs, as though God wants to nail the Stur bloodline with the Sewers/Suters. The Steer surname has a write-up mentioning a Steart/Stert location (in Somerset, the Stur-river theater).

While Sturs are Esturmys too, the Stormys/Estormys (first found in the Stur-river theater) use a passant lion in the colors of the same of Steers. There is a Storm surname sharing three red fesses with Sturs. See also the Stur branch of Esters/Sturs, who use a bend in colors reversed from the Rodham bend. Rodhams were first found in Northumberland, same as Siward of Northumberland whom I've long seen behind the Sewer surname.

From my February quote, you'll note that I didn't call it a page, but rather a "piece of paper." At first, this seems to discredit the theory that the dream was about Lisa Page, but hold off before coming to that conclusion. Earlier in the first update of February, where the dream was first introduced, I was on a Sign given by God in Crystal City, where I stayed in a motel with cockROACHes behind the WALLPAPER. I was able to show that the Paper surname was also the PapWALL/PEPwall (suspect with Pepins and Pipe's) surname, which looks meaningful. But the great Sign of that day was the black smoke out the tailPIPE of my vehicle on the morning of staying the night in that motel. The Smoke surname was checked to find it listed, unexpectedly, with RAUCHers, like the Roach surname! I thought that was amazing.

Back to the first update in February:

I was wondering why the billiard table had a piece of paper on it, instead of being prepared with the paper airplane in the first place. I've looked at the Papers, but can't find a link to other surnames Intended by this dream. The Peace's were interesting because Obama's mother is immediately from the Paine's, while Payen liners like Page's share the dove with Peace's. I was wondering whether the piece of paper was intended as a page, but had no way to know, until I heard the song I was listening to, at exactly the moment that the Page Coat loaded. I kid you not, I am not lying, the [music] speaker is right behind my ear, and the singer is Francesca BATTistelli. I've taken three of her songs from youtube, and this one is titled, "Write Your Story." The chorus starts with, "I'm an empty PAGE, I'm an open book," and that's what was playing while checking out the Page Coat. I have never before been involved in anything like this. And I'm not even afraid. It is so good to hear from God in this way. I'm thanking Him every day, but wondering where this is going. The Page page had been loaded no more than 10 seconds when I heard, "I'm an empty page." The music folder I'm listening to has about 20 songs, and yet, Battistelli's page song happened to be playing when the Page page loaded.

That's part of what convinced me that the dream had a page rather than a piece of paper, BUT NOW, note the Steele-like ending on "BattiSTELLI", for the Trump dossier was from Mr. Steele while apparently including Strzok. It now appears that God chose to clinch the Page surname using a musical artist that points to Mr. Steele. The spectator.org website asks: "Did Peter Strzok receive the Steele Dossier from Hillary Clinton on July 4th when he interviewed her? If Hillary didn't give Strzok the dossier, who did? Did Peter Strzok put together the FISA Court material, which included the Steele Dossier?...Did Peter Strzok go to the FISA Court and ask for the surveillance of the Trump team based on the Steele Dossier?..."

The Steele surname uses a good reflection of the Clinton Coat (!), and replaces the Clinton stars with billets! I know the Clinton Coat to use the Saluzzo Coat, and I therefore link Clintons in marriage to a line from Alice of Saluzzo. Saluzzo is near the Stur-suspect Stura Demonte river. Steele's were first found in Cheshire along with Saluzzo-suspect Sales'. Aha! The Battistelli Chief (top third of the Shield) shares billets with the Steele Chief!!!

The Sewer/Suter Coat is in Saluzzo colors, and shares the fitchee cross species with Clintons and Hillarys, which are similar, and in the colors of, the "patee fitchee" cross of Plains/Platers. The Plains/Platers even use the fleur-de-lys of Sales'! That reminds of SALLY Yates, for Sales' come up as "Sally"! Can you believe this? But I had this dream before these people were known to me, when I had no clue that it was about Sally Yates and company.

As for BATTistelli, the Scottish Randolphs (share the Bath cross) use a BAT as code for the Baths / Batts, and one can easily see that English Randolphs share the Coat of Dunhams (same place as Hillarys). It appears that God is about to drag Obama into this Clinton exposure now in the news. This is great. It makes me happy to see God involved in Justice over our powerful enemies, forgive me if this is a bad attitude. The Batts (more bats) actually use a version of the Roost/Rust Coat while the latter use black-on-white fitchee crosses, the colors of the same of Hillarys / Clintons. Moreover, the Battins/Badens, first found in Somerset with Baths, use an eye that I see as code for an Eye location because it's beside Diss while Baths use a "DISpertire" motto code. Believe it or not, another black-on-white fitchee is used by Tire's ("ardua" motto term links well to Baths and Artems) suspect in "disperTIRE". Diss and Eye are locations in Suffolk, where Plains/Platers (same fitchee) were first found, and right beside the border of Norfolk, where Dunhams / Hillarys / Skate's/Sheets were first found.

I always link the WheelWRIGHT antelope to the Singletary antelope, and here it can be mentioned that Wrights share the Sturt/Stuart / Stewart Coat, in case "STRZok" is a Sturt variation somehow. Note that while Sturs/Sturs' are suspect, Francesca's song is, "Write Your STORY." There is a Story/Stury surname sharing six sections with Wheelwrights. And, there is a SOGG/Suges surname first found in Hampshire with the Stur surname that could possibly have formed, StrZOK. In fact, the Sachs/Sax's share the white-on-black rose with Swiss Sewers.

Mueller, it is said, removed Lisa Page from his special council last July, and returned her to the FBI. The dream was given in the first week of February, I wonder why then. I wonder whether Page and/or Strzok started their tasks together in February. In any case, the dream reveals that they worked for Obama and Lynch (Obama's attorney general).

It's also interesting that while I trace Pennys/Penes' to the Penestae peoples on an ancient Drilon river, Lisa-like Lissus (now Lezhe) was a city at the mouth of that river while Pennys/Penes', who share courant greyhounds with Lise's/Lys', share the lynx with the Lynch Crest. Amazing, is it not? For this "coincidence," it seems that God provided someone with a Lynch surname to be Obama's attorney general so that we could clinch Lisa Page with the page on the billiard table. Indeed, for the page was made into an airplane, and Bill Clinton went to Lynch's airplane when she landed in Phoenix. English Page's even use arrow heads called, PHEONs, suspect for years from Phoenicians, named after mythical Phoenix. Pheons can be code for the Payen-suspect Paeoni/Paioni who lived beside LYNCestes. French Page's (Paper/Papwell lions?) were first found in the same place as Payens/Paions, part of the Payne the bloodline of Obama's mother. The Penestae were near both Lyncestes and the Paeoni.

The complaints from Republicans are resurfacing as per Mueller stacking his special council with anti-Trump Democrats. Here's more evidence for that charge:

A top prosecutor [Weissmann below] who is now a deputy for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe praised outgoing acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she was fired in January by President Trump for refusing to defend his controversial travel ban. The email, obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, shows that on the night of Jan. 30, Andrew Weissmann wrote to Yates under the subject line, “I am so proud.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the new Weissmann document an “astonishing and disturbing find.”

“Andrew Weissmann, a key prosecutor on Robert Mueller’s team, praised Obama DOJ holdover Sally Yates after she lawlessly thwarted President Trump,” he said in a statement. “How much more evidence do we need that the Mueller operation has been irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump partisans?”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/mueller-deputy-praised-doj-official-after-defied-trump-travel-ban-order-am-so-proud.html

When it rains, it pours. Mueller was praised by liberals for being independent / impartial but turns out to be a biased beast. This man is dangerous, actually, having zero morality in his bones, and is apparently capable of jailing people unjustifiably. These are the kind I would welcome to see in jail prompto.

It appears to me that God may have arranged a situation for Jeff Sessions that makes him unable to fire Mueller. The longer Mueller continues, the more that's exposed about him and his invisibles. What next?

We all know that the Mueller "investigation" is part-and-parcel the wicked hope of Hillary Clinton's bid to disqualify Trump. It seems that the Mueller-Rosenstein team had some future plans, and some past plots to protect, with Hillary Clinton as the president. But Obama has been mainly outside the field of back-and-forth accusations, yet the dream with Obama in his billiard hall suggests that Obama will be affected by the revelation. The dream ended with Obama upset with an employee, and scolding the employee while the latter's back was turned toward Obama. It can suggest a turning of the back -- a betrayal -- on Obama by a previous tool of his. That would be nice to see. This employee appeared immediately after Obama danced and skated with finesse, like a successful one. That is, while confident, Obama suffers a fall due to a traitor.

Was there no way for God to indicate Peter Strzok, in the dream, other than the sewer of an airplane in a corner pocket? It's not an easy surname to get across to me, at all, especially if I have never heard of it (I had not heard of it). I have long known the Sewer variation of Suters, however, but did not know that the same one comes up as "Suit" until I tried it as per Obama's dark suit. If the corner pocket refers to Strzok, then the fact the airplane went into it can suggest that Strzok was speaking to Lisa Page concerning the tarmac meeting, the purpose of which was, as is reasoned, for Bill Clinton to convince Loretta Lynch to go easy on Hillary Clinton in her email-scandal troubles. While the Mueller team and the FBI are not coughing up the Strzok-Page messages, perhaps their correspondences (emails or phone calls) touch upon that tarmac effort.

I've read and/or heard that Clinton and Lynch were on the plane together while discussing things. This would require that Lynch come down off her plane, meet Bill, then climb back up with him to the plane, with the police escort for Lynch waiting down off the plane, and with every officer wondering what the two were doing, if the officers per-chance saw them together to begin with. One of the officers decided to make this meeting known, which is not a criminal act, but the FBI may have committed a criminal act when trying to gag him. As yet, we don't know what they did to this officer, and he's apparently afraid to speak out...that is, if he's still alive or free to do speak out.

I don't think the Phoenix police department has a right to keep him from speaking out, as it violates free speech. He can speak out while not on duty. It's not criminal to say that my name is such-and-such, and I saw Bill Clinton with Loretta Lynch, and the FBI tried to gag me in such-and-such a way(s) when telling about this meeting. This is what we want to know of the FBI, and whether Comey was a part of it.

When Lynch was forced to step down from the job now held by Jeff Sessions, Sally Yates (Obama appointee) took her place. Here it's interesting that while the airplane went into a corner POCKET, the Pocket/Poucher surname is suspect with the giant cinquefoil of Porchers/Portis', suggesting that Porchers were a Pocket/Poucher branch. Then, while Potters (Hampshire) share the white cinquefoil with Porchers/PORTis' (suspect in naming Portishead, near the Stur), Potters are in PORTer/PAWTER colors and first found in Hampshire too, which is roughly where the Stur river flows. Finally, can you believe it, the Yates share the portcullis gate with Porters. The Porcher/Portis Crest shares three red-on-gold fesses with Sturs, believe it or not.

In other words, God had to think long and hard (maybe a couple of seconds) to figure out how to get Sally Yates into the dream's props, and He did it by having me SHOOT (like the Shuter variation of Sewers) the airplane into a corner pocket, thus tending to clinch that Lynch is part of the dream's airplane. It would have been futile for God to do it this way had I not become well-acquainted with making heraldry links, though it's not hard to recall that YATE's and Porters both use the portcullis GATE as play on their surnames. I don't know any other surname (by memory, anyway) using that symbol.

There is a Shoot/Shute surname, first found in Wiltshire, near the Stur river. Wiltshire is where Stormys/Esturmys were first found who are in Potter / Porter/Pawter colors. Recalling that Boards use a version of the Sewer/Shuter Coat, note that Porter-like Borders/Boarders, first found in the Stur-river theater, use the same sword colors as Shoots/Shute's.

God could have chosen to shoot the plane into the side pocket. Why the corner? Corners happen to use another white sword, this time in both colors of the sword of Cullis', the latter suspect in the portCULLIS code. Corners are listed with Garners, first found in Rodham-suspect Rutland. If this is Rutland of Leicester, it's notable that the giant Porcher/Portis cinquefoil can be in the Arms of Leicester. Rodhams use a cinquefoil colors reversed from the same of Potters, not to mention the Flowers (evokes Gennifer Flowers). Corners/Garners share the fleur-de-lys of Flow-like Plows, and Plows (Shropshire, same place as Rodden river seen in the Rodden/Rodham write-up) use an "alteri" motto term while Roddens/Rodhams use "alter." There we have a way to link Rodhams to Plows to Flowers and therefore to Potters that are in-turn suspect with the Rodham cinquefoil.

The dream seems to be predicting that, when the FBI was trying hunting for the person who was revealing the Clinton-Lynch meeting, Strzok and Page were part of the hunt team. Lisa has been, after all, an FBI lawyer, and perhaps she spoke to Phoenix with some requests to shut the man/woman up. There are two theories on why Mueller demoted Strzok, the first being the one that the media is carrying, that Mueller was offended by the Strzok-Page messages. It makes Mueller look good and impartial. But knowing that Mueller himself wants to destroy Trump by any means, there can be a better explanation. Mueller wanted Strzok to perform the functions of saving Hillary Clinton and advancing her Russia-collusion plot against Trump, but Strzok may have committed an error(s) against Mueller's will that was punished. Men talk with their lovers, and they can talk too much. That's what this looks like, and that talk is recorded somewhere, caught by spies on the Mueller side.

The fact that the highly-liberal news media leaked the existence (but not the contents) of the Strzok-Page text messages may mean that they leaked a story far less sinister than was the real case. We were told that Strzok and Page were engaged in pro-Clinton text messages that simultaneously had an anti-Trump attitude, but may this be a ruse for damage control? Probably. Might the texts messages, emails or phone calls be far-more damaging to Clinton as per what they spoke of concerning the tarmac meeting? I'll bet. I anticipate discovery if only because the dream seems to be predicting it. Mueller never did reveal Strzok's presence there; it had been discovered.

We can assume that Trump receives a near-daily briefing from the FBI. There are at least two theories: 1) Trump and Wray are working in concert to give their Democrat enemies the impression that the president is not entertaining the congressional / public demand to give up some critical documents concerning Clinton scandals; 2) Trump is not working that way, but has been deceived (or is pretending to be deceived) by Wray when the latter gives his fine-sounding excuse for not giving up the documents. Is there a third theory?

Does Trump Really Love Jerusalem?

Trump is about to sign a waiver that "delays" moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. As president, Trump had broken his promise on this issue, and is about to do so again. There's no excuse; Trump is clearly affected by those who want a Palestinian state, plain and simple, including the Arabs. The United States thinks it needs to walk the fence between the Israelis and Arabs, but this is only to keep Saudi Arabia firmly on a friendly basis with the United States. How do we think God feels about this?

President Donald Trump’s Schedule for Wednesday, December 6, 2017

President Donald Trump will receive his daily intelligence briefing in the morning then hold a Cabinet Meeting.

In the afternoon, the President will deliver a statement on Jerusalem where he is expected to announce the movement of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The move will send a message to the world that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, something several past presidents have promised to do but were never able to follow-thru.

https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2017/12/president-donald-trumps-schedule-wednesday-december-6-2017/

Apparently, by the 6th, which is as I write, we don't yet know for sure what Trump will do with the embassy move, but Jerusalem (East and West) can yet be declared the capital aside from the embassy shift. Will Trump do even that much, or cave in?

Trump is telling his enemies where he will appear in the future. For example, it's known he'll be in Pensacola in two days (Friday). Trump needs to take a lesson from the murder of John F Kennedy, a real possibility with himself. He could perhaps make very sparse his public meetings, for now, anyway, or at least not reveal them until close to the dates.

Also on the 6th by Townhall, "Yesterday the White House officially announced plans to move the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, officially recognizing the Holy City as the capitol of Israel." Why, therefore, did we read that Trump will sign a waiver? He's slated to make the announcement in less than three hours as I write. If this goes through, they say it can take four years to finish the move, and we may gather that, for at least two or three of them, there will be plenty of Palestinian and Arab uprisings. Of course, this could bring on the anti-Christ, and we may even hear of Obama's involvement. This move by Trump could even be viewed by Obama as his fateful opportunity for involvement.

I'm reading that, just yesterday, Trump announced the news to Abbas, according to Abbas' spokespeople, and that the Palestinian Authority even made the announcement on its state radio. Perhaps there was some twisting of words to get that news outcome. I'm wondering whether Trump intends to exclude East (Arab) Jerusalem in the capital declaration, though there will not be a capital declaration. I don't see how an embassy move declares Jerusalem as the state capital. The latter requires a separate move by the Israelis, nothing to do with Trump's official word. There could be a lot of click-bait taking place on this news track. Just 1.5 hours to go now.

Let's go to the Jerusalem Post. In it's lead article today, almost nothing, no details on what Trump may or may not have said to the Palestinian Authority. There's just this: "Ahead of US President Donald Trump’s expected declaration of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, no special incidents or protests were reported in the city on Wednesday." That sounds more like Abbas knows of a waiver. But ABC on the 6th:

In a momentous shift of United States foreign policy in the Middle East, President Donald Trump is set to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel [today] and initiate the process of relocating the U.S. embassy to the city from Tel Aviv, according to senior administration officials...The president will also sign a six-month waiver of a 1995 law mandating an embassy move, thereby keeping the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv for the time being as he initiates the process of relocating the embassy – a process that is expected to take years...Until the new embassy in Jerusalem opens, current law requires the president to sign the waiver that maintains the embassy in Tel Aviv.

I see. There will be the declaration, as well as the standard waiver, though, this time, as a mere formality. The way this is being framed, one has reason to suspect a trick by Trump to give the illusion of fulfilling his campaign promise, while he can back-track later, after he wins in 2020. No matter, it can still cause the appearance of the anti-Christ before too long.

I do not see that it should take four years to make the move, as it's to be expected that Israel already had the blueprints, the contract to build, and even the location chosen. This claim that it will take four years looks like a Trump-team trick, or, at best, the setting off of a trial balloon for to check what and when the next move should be.

Well, I went out to do some work at noon, returning at 1:35, and when loading the youtube video below (by Washington Post) on Trump's Jerusalem announcement, I was the 666th viewer. What to say about that! It may not have meant much if someone else was the 666th, but I'm one of the men covering prophecy closely. The problem is, the video was black (no picture) even after more than five minutes. It says that it was streamed live less than an hour ago. Checking an ABC video, Trump has apparently not shown up yet to the podium.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_EPXyqJqik

As I wait, I can relay some information from Hannity's show Strzok-Page. he says that eight of the 16 lawyers used by Mueller's special council donated to Democrats while none of the 16 donated to Republicans or the president. One of the eight is/was Andrew Weissmann (donated $4,300) seen earlier. Another of the eight lawyers is/was James Quarles. Checking that latter surname, it's not only a variation of the Quarrels, but uses a "fesse dancette" while first found in Norfolk with the dancette-using Dunhams. As I said, immediately after Obama Dunham danced and skateboarded, he was shown having a quarrel with a man whose back was toward him. The latter's head was turning back, listening to Obama chew him out (I saw some of that man's face) while on his knees or crouched down. His back impressed me.

Hannity says (nearing 10:00 minutes) that the FBI's McCabe is supposed to appear before a congressional hearing Thursday (tomorrow), but that he's not showing up. Here is where Trump can throw his weight at McCabe, if Trump really is the man everyone thinks he is. Trump is McCabe's highest boss. How dare McCabe not show up. How dare Trump let's him get away with it.

He did it. Trump announced that the United States supports Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. This is a bold move, from an Arab perspective, even if there are strings / tricks attached. There are tricks involved, because in the same announcement, Trump says that the "United States" (he didn't say "I") remains committed to the formation of a Palestinian state. East Jerusalem remains in Arab hands; the mosque on the Temple site remains sacred to Muslims. What in essence has changed? Nothing. Certainly, God cares nothing about the United States having an embassy in His Jerusalem. From God's perspective, this doesn't reach, bold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Rd-yTUg4o

The Palestinians who oppose this announcement do so because they want all of Jerusalem for themselves, and because Trump appears as Santa Claus granting Israel a great gift this year. The Palestinians were hoping that the American leadership, like the pope or other Western leaders, would start leaning toward Palestinian favoritism, wherefore Trump looks disappointing to their prospects. He is correct to say that it's wrong for past American presidents to have promised what he just gave Israel while turning their backs on their promise. It's a good thing if Mr. Trump feels conscious about keeping promises. Perhaps its part of his trending.

If we think that Trump was doing Jesus a kindness today, think again: "In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem's holy sites." Oops, that's the site of the house of "My Father," said Jesus. The Muslims stole that temple site as their own, did they not? Yes, and they made Mohammad their savior. How dare, Mr. Trump, do you say that the temple site belongs to Muslims. Don't you know your basic Israeli religion? You put the American embassy in God's symbolic city, and you then slap the Jews in the face by telling them that Muslims own the temple site. It would have been better had he said nothing about the mosque or East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu is now being forced to say that the mosque's blessing will remain as part of Israel's official position, thus putting more distance between Israel and the Father than would otherwise have been the case if Netanyahu was only permitting a secular / masonic United States to enter West Jerusalem. We as Christians need to view things correctly, yet there are myriads of Christians hailing Trump for his courage today. Had he exercised better courage, he would have stood with the Son of God in condemning the mosque, and calling to East Jerusalem to be the possession of Israel. Perhaps I'm being too hard on Trump because he's not a Christian, but, my point is, we Christians need to call this out for what it is, woefully short of pleasing the God of Israel.

Trump-supporting Believers will say that this is at least a step in the right direction? How is it a right thing to have America closer to Jerusalem? Since when are the American ambassadors in Israel followers of Christ Jesus? Isn't it fairly clear that the bulk of these ambassadors will urge Israel to allow a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital? Trump's son-in-law is reportedly working on a Palestinian-state deal as we speak. It's hard to say whether Trump has fallen for basking in the glory of finally manifesting such a state "solution."

We have yet to see whether this move is part of God's will to bring Israel the anti-Christ. If the American president continues to show what appears to Muslims as Israeli favoritism, the arrival of prophecy could become more likely.

Another possible let-down for the Arabs: "Trump said the United States will continue to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian standoff, 'if agreed to by both sides.'" Possible translation: "Netanyahu won't agree to it, and I won't push him." Or, that's the way the Arabs will see it.

This decision is beneficial for exposing who's for and against Israel. Teresa May and the pope together are blatantly revealing themselves as favoring Muslims. It's very strange behavior, demonic, of course. We are awaiting word for the next gay orgy at the Vatican. We saw how this pope covered up the last orgy that was leaked (earlier this year). He's tight-lipped on the righteousness-matter, and outspoken for the cause of satan in Israel.

Isn't it plain to May and the pope that the Muslims have no reason to be upset with Trump's decision today, since the Palestinian state, as envisioned by the West, does not include West Jerusalem? It's in West Jerusalem that Trump is offering the embassy. If, then, that part of the city is slated to go to Israel, what's the problem? What sort of prickly cactus has entered the anus of the pope, to make him so uncomfortable here? And why is May talking about Armageddon if all that Trump has done is to put an embassy in the part of town that's already allotted for Israel? Is the entire world to transform into the utter lunatics that the Hamas' of the Arab world have long been? Everything is an offense to Hamas because Hamas is a lunatic that has lost a grip, but the British leadership has been trending akin to Hamas for a decade and longer. It is very queerly strange, and predicted by prophecy on both sides.

We might like to let Trump off the hook because we can blame his foreign-affairs team for holding his feet to the Palestinian state. But then we could criticize the president for listening to his human team rather than to God. Trump is not wholly ignorant to the will of God for end-time Jerusalem. Virtually the entire educated world knows the end-time position of God for Jerusalem. And if his team wishes to oppose God in this matter, Trump becomes guilty by association. I'm sure that, in order to get his team to support this embassy move, the president had to publicly reaffirm the drive to create a Palestinian state as part of the package. It is a move despised by God, therefore, and a weak one. Trump acted weakly, not courageously.

We could argue that, since the American president doesn't appear to be one to abandon Israel, as might Teresa May, the anti-Christ would have a hard time invading Israel while Trump is in power. It makes more sense should the anti-Christ invade Israel with a president-Obama type. My view of Daniel 11 is that the anti-Christ will be incapable -- too small / weak -- to attack Israel until he first seizes much wealth in Iraq and Syria.

Trump's team should have said this: "The Israeli nation, under the ancient God of Israel, has a right to deny the Palestinians their own state so long as the Palestinians show animosity to Israel's keeping West Jerusalem as their own. In fact, the Palestinians will ultimately need to move out of East Jerusalem when Jesus returns to claim that entire country, so they may as well start moving out now. Israeli's have the right to build and live in East Jerusalem." Now that would have been cause for Christian celebration over Trump's words. As they were, his words were those of a lightweight.

The Democrats are naturally accusing that Trump is starting a firestorm, when the reality is that Palestinians are wrongfully starting the firestorm. Therefore, ignore the liberals as political beasts, good for no truthful statement.

Next. Nunes threatened the Trump people with contempt charges if they didn't hand over certain Strzok-related information by Thursday. On Wednesday, a surprise:

Justice Department officials are reading through “over 10,000 texts” between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Fox News has learned...

Department of Justice officials told Fox News they are in the process of going through the texts so they can hand them over to the House Intelligence Committee.

...Justice Department officials say the process of reading and redacting the texts could take “weeks,” and that the thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page span over “several months.”

The Intelligence Committee has wanted more than the text messages due to suspicions that Strzok was the hub for Trump's present woes. You see, attacking Trump was the key to exposing themselves, the stupids. Attack some more, stupids.

What can 10,000 texts tell us (besides the fact the Strzok's wife is wanting to bash in his head)? They must have made a lot of phone calls too. But didn't they also engage in official FBI business under Mueller? That's what we want to know. This could be a long wait.

On Thursday, Wray was before a hearing. A representative from Texas (Gohmert) asked whether he knew of any senior FBI people who had the same political persuasion as Andrew McCabe, but Wray refused to answer except to spin by saying that no senior FBI person obstructs justice due to their political leaning. Therefore, Wray is a rat, plain and simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH_sH0jPVTg

When asked by someone else (Nadler) to comment on Trump's tweet where the latter said the FBI is in tatters, Wray did not address Trump's concern, but spun the answer with focus on all the thousands of FBI people who work hard to protect the American people. Why didn't Wray address the meat of Trump's tweet? Because, Wray is one of the rats, I now know this, pure and simple. Trump was referring specifically to senior people at the FBI protecting, not the American people, but criminal / politicized / unethical acts from pro-Obama people. Wray clearly did not want to offend / criticize his fellow rats, and therefore skirted the issue, and in the meantime he was implying that Trump spoke as an unjustified / cynical critic.

I doubt very much that the Democrat who asked Wray to comment on the tweet would have done so had the answer not been known beforehand, for the Democrats would not want to give Wray an opportunity to support Trump's tweet. That's how we can know that Wray is a rat...and that Trump is a dummy for picking him. But this is all good when the stakes are high against the president, for the president has his own team fighting back as a result. Our job is to ignore Democrat comments as merely crafted, and see the truth for what it is. This will re-shape the American future...what's left of it...and can alleviate some persecution against Christians even while promising more of it in a backlash. It can alleviate persecution when anti-Christians are removed from power structures.

I can't share some of these videos with you because they are presented live as I watch them. In another exchange, this time from Gaetz (Republican), Wray would not say that Mueller choose his special-council team corruptly to favor Clinton. Wray said that he would not answer as to what Mueller's motives were in choosing his team (it's just a way to skirt the obvious issue), even though any normal person can readily see that Mueller chose his team corruptly. There you have the Wray rat cornered, and still supporting his fellow rats.

Gaetz then moves on to the tarmac meeting, the automatic / politicized exoneration (less than a slap on the wrist) of Hillary prior to FBI interviews seeking her possible guilt, and all Gaetz wanted to see from Wray was his own concern about these matters, yet Wray showed no concern, no alarm, and was unwilling to offer Republicans any clue or piece of confidence that he saw things their way. It seems that they will need to force Wray's hand to admit to the dirt, and to discard it.

Aha! Congressman Jordan has his five minutes with Wray, and after telling that Strzok was removed from Mueller's council merely for an anti-Trump text message, he says, "There's got to be something more here. It can't just be some text messages that show a pro-Clinton / anti-Trump bias. There's got to be something more," Jordan said, with confidence on his face. Perfect. Exactly. Wray's response makes him look like he's covering things up, and Jordan continues with a bombshell, essentially accusing Strzok, before all, of being at the center of the dossier matter. Wray gives no hint that Jordan is correct, but refuses to answer. This video is a must-see, where Wray looks more a rat in a sewer than ever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=726zpPA0FBU

Here's on the controversy of "gross negligence" where Wray admits that it's a legal phrase signifying criminal depth. But Wray is unwilling to show his personal view that Comey scrapped that phrase purely to protect Hillary from criminal prosecution. Wray gives me no reason to see that he's a straight-shooting, truth-based man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4g8oYBlzEY

If you like Trey Gowdy, here he is (repeating all the typical charges) not wasting any of his five minutes by asking Wray a question, but rather making him feel guilty (if he's able to blush, that is) for the cover-up track that he's taking. Wrays short response seems to be to hold out some promise that, wherever there is corruption that Gowdy is concerned with, he'll deal with it properly. But that's a long time from now. What Gowdy and the people he represents want is the documents that the FBI is withholding so that the people can read NOW what went on, rather than hearing Wray's softened version of it after the 2018 elections.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23mxHll9SWk

Wray's task seems to be to squelch all controversy from both opposing sides, which was Trump's tack not long ago: let's have hearings and then move on, without arrests. The idea was to make the public forget that the FBI has acted corruptly. Trump has since changed his tune, yet more needs to fly against his face to convince him to see arrests. Wray seems to be sitting pat with Trump unable to influence his work and decisions, but this is a false hope. The president can DEMAND that Wray act appropriately when he finally fails to. If Trump could fire Comey for not indicting Clinton, he can do the same with Wray. Trump doesn't want a repeat of Comey, but will do it to Wray if the president is threatened enough by his inaction. Trump's supporters should soon gang up on Wray for the suspicious / weak way he's now conducting himself.

On Thursday evening, a headline pops up: "Top DOJ official demoted amid probe of contacts with Trump dossier firm". This demotion and that of Strzok reminds us of the Vatican demoting child-molester priests instead of firing them outright. A demotion today can become a promotion when the fury clears. Lookie at the substance:

A senior Justice Department official [Bruce Ohr] was demoted this week amid an ongoing investigation into his contacts with the opposition research firm responsible for the anti-Trump “dossier,” the department confirmed to Fox News.

Until Wednesday morning, Bruce G. Ohr held two titles at DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, a post that placed him four doors down from his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), a program described by the department as “the centerpiece of the attorney general’s drug strategy.”

...Fox News has learned that evidence collected by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., indicates that Ohr met during the 2016 campaign with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the “dossier.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/07/top-doj-official-demoted-amid-probe-contacts-with-trump-dossier-firm.html

Zowie, nothing could be worse for the DoJ than this. We want to know why the DoJ refused to reveal the reason for Ohr's "demotion"???! Did Jeff Sessions have anything to do with that decision? Did Sessions at least sign-off on it? This issue is a big slap to Trump's face where the buck stops at Sessions. WOW! Does Sessions want to know whether Ohr was involved with the make-up of the dossier? I can tell you this, that the president has the right to ask all the intelligence people, including Wray, what they know about it, and what they can do to find out as to what all went on.

Additionally, House investigators have determined that Ohr met shortly after the election with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS – the opposition research firm that hired Steele to compile the dossier with funds supplied by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. By that point, according to published reports, the dossier had been in the hands of the FBI, which exists under the aegis of DOJ, for some five months, and the surveillance on Carter Page, an adviser to the Trump campaign, had started more than two months prior (same article).

This is out in the news on the day that Wray was questioned. If he thought he had a victorious day, think again. It is Wray's responsibility to come out with the dossier secrets, and this new revelation, perhaps leaked today for a Wray-reason, makes it harder for Wray to wear a thin smile, saying, "I can't help you, sorry." There is no way that Wray can excuse himself from investigating Ohr under an official FBI program. Ohr is part of the virtual definition of an invisible government, one of unelected people seeking to topple a government and/or government program. Ohr is up a creek without a paddle, and Wray needs to go fetch him.

Recall the page on the billiard table that was turned into a plane representing Loretta Lynch, and then read the below with yet another Page surname:

Former FBI Director James Comey, testifying before the House in March, described the dossier as a compendium of “salacious and unverified” allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates. The Nunes panel has spent much of this year investigating whether DOJ, under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, used the dossier to justify a foreign surveillance warrant against [Carter] Page (same article).

Carter Page was a Trump-election advisor who so far has appeared on news shows to deny any guilt and deflect accusations. It's interesting that while the page was shot into the corner pocket, the Corner surname is shown properly as "Garner," a possible Carter / Garter branch. In any case, the German Trump surname is also "Tromp," while Dutch Tromps share the aCORN (like "Corner") with Corners/Garners. Just a preliminary thought.

The entire article is a bombshell:

According to congressional sources, Simpson and Ohr met sometime around Thanksgiving last year, when President-elect Trump was in the process of selecting his cabinet, and discussed over coffee the anti-Trump dossier, the Russia investigation and what Simpson considered the distressing development of Trump’s victory.

How exactly Simpson and Ohr came to know each other is still being investigated, but initial evidence collected by the House intelligence committee suggests that the two were placed in touch by Steele, a former FBI informant whose contacts with Ohr are said by senior DOJ officials to date back to 2006.

Nunes, who has instructed HPSCI staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray – preparatory to a House vote on whether the citations should be enforced – issued a fresh subpoena on Thursday specifically covering Ohr and his files.

You see, Wray is on the dossier side of things, which is excellent, because, if he's one of them, he needs to be (mis)treated like one. The likelihood is that Ohr met with Steel to discover from Steele at least parts of a false and contrived dossier story, and then relay the discoveries to the heads of his justice department so that the latter could enrich the plot (give it more credibility). The possibility is that Ohr (and even Strzok) was demoted because he refused to fully play along with the Steele game. SonofNewo has already come out with the Ohr story, if you're interested in a lot of rehash, or in putting it together with his two or three videos (see last update) on Papadopoulos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEA34I-6iAQ

Likewise from Fox on Thursday (though out initially on Tuesday):

Yet another member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigative team is facing questions over potential bias after it emerged that she used to represent ex-Obama aide Ben Rhodes and the Clinton Foundation.

Jeannie Rhee is a former partner at WilmerHale — the high-profile law firm where Mueller worked prior to taking on the special counsel role. She is one of at least three attorneys who followed Mueller from WilmerHale.

...But this week, details of Rhee’s client relationships emerged, revealing that she represented Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes during the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation of the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack.

...Also this week, it was reported that Rhee represented the Clinton Foundation in 2015 against a racketeering lawsuit brought by conservative legal activist group Freedom Watch in 2015. Rhee also represented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit seeking access to her private emails.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/07/top-mueller-investigators-democratic-ties-raise-new-bias-questions.html

So, Mueller had yet another trusted name in Rhee, yet, through all of this, Mueller and his supporters deny a Clinton-biased team.

In Tom Fitton's weekly address below, he claims (before the 7th minute) that Trump was watching him on television while speaking on some new details about the FBI's McCabe, and the president then re-tweeted a tweet from Fitton and/or Judicial Watch. It's heartening that Trump would show public approval for the work of Judicial Watch. The latter really deserves a lot of key credit, if not most of it for starting the successful charge toward much of what's now falling down on the multiple heads of the FBI hydra. In case I missed something important, I listened only to a third of the video because I figure it's a repeat of things I've already heard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVKFHuCx_qc

To see an example of the Democrats trying to trap Trump before last election, though the story is out this week, see:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/cnn-botches-major-bombshell-alleging-contacts-between-don-jr-and-wikileaks/

Roy Moore Up in the Credible Polls

The Alabama election in on the 12th, a day after this update us due for release. On the 8th, one of his debunked accusers came out to admit that the writing under the Moore signature was her own. That is, it was she who put the date (Dec 22, 1977) and "Ole Hickory House" under Moore's signature. Too little, too late, obviously, but I say that this move is to protect her legally.

The accuser (Nelson), and her lawyer (Allred), have had about three weeks to come clean on the yearbook signature, and Nelson's lawyer stated on television that the entirety of what was on the yearbook was written by Moore, even while Moore's lawyer(s) openly claimed that this could not be the case. How can we expect Nelson to tell Allred and the world that Moore wrote the part below his signature, and then, some three weeks later, change her story? It's easy to explain. The two plotters wanted all to believe that Moore wrote the date and location, but seeing that the public tended to believed Moore's charge over her charge, and seeing an easy court win for Moore (if he should take her to court), the plotter's decided to change their story. And look at the timing, to make for maximum damage politically.

She made the confession on ABC, with ABC in full compliance with her plot. ABC failed to ask her the tough questions, but rather catered to her new story. ABC failed to ask why she entered the date and location so close to Moore's signature (there was lots of room on the page) that it appears to be a part of the signature. ABC, so far as I've heard over several videos I've watched on the topic (as of the 8th), failed to ask Nelson why her new admission wasn't readily admitted to from the start. Impoverished ABC, the willing news-fake. And ABC failed to ask when she added the date and place? If she did it recently, how could she possibly remember that it was on December 22? If she did it way back in 1977, then allow the Moore team to inspect the age of the ink? It's obvious that the ink is only months old, isn't it? And why was her yearbook at Old Hickory House three days before Christmas? Here's the story (first couple of minutes is sufficient):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUY22Jgnv84

ABC was also compelled (but naturally failed) to ask her about the "D.A.", for Moore said that he never signed his name with that ending. But the accuser had such a signature (with the ending including) in her possession from when Moore was her judge during her divorce case. The problem is, any "D.A." coming after his signature was from a court servant that Moore had. They are the initials of the court servant, in other words, and that servant must have signed her court papers when Moore was her judge, proving that she (or her ACCOMPLICE) forged the "D.A." part, and even the Moore signature. She or her accomplice had plenty of time to practice forging the signature because she had it in her possession (for many years).

If you want to know which Conservative media support the frog-faced "Republican establishment," now is a good time. Just check how they treated the Moore story. The National Review denounces Moore while supporting the Washington-Post story as "the strong case built against [Moore]..." Shame, editor of National Review. Your viper eggs are being exposed by your own reporters. One would think that a conservative media learned years ago that the Post is a Democrat bastion = contrived "news". The National Review knows that the Post story has the motive, by Democrats, to fabricate charges against Moore, but, obviously, the Review wanted the other Republican candidate, the one supported by the frog, McConnell. His kind can be found sun-bathing on all the lilypads of the swamp.

Now that Nelson has admitted to entering her own notes, her latest story is that two writers contributed to the yearbook, and so let's laugh it up a little at the expense of the FBI:

Three weeks ago, in a partisan effort to dismiss what is now an admitted forgery, and what at the time was an obvious forgery, the left-wing Washington Post’s Philip Bump (already a proven liar) consulted former FBI agent Mark Songer, a forensics documents examiner, to examine a yearbook produced by one of Roy Moore’s accusers as evidence he assaulted her. The expert concluded that the “writing seems consistent with one writer.” [Oops]

The context of when Bump published this piece is important. If you recall, the Washington Post was the news outlet that first broke the story of the Moore allegations, and it was during this time that outside fact-checking of the Post‘s reporting revealed serious lapses, all them pointing to a Moore accuser who manufactured a false narrative.

...Anyone with half a brain and even a dollop of intellectual honesty knew that this portion [under the signature] of the inscription did not match the rest...

...This is not only another black eye for Bump, the Washington Post, and all of the mainstream media; it is yet another black eye for an FBI that is increasingly seen as a partisan mob [excellent phrase] of secret police working hand-in-hand with a corrupt media to overturn elections [and create presidents they desire election after election].

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/12/08/flashback-wapo-document-expert-said-forged-roy-moore-yearbook-consistent-one-writer/

Breitbart above continues to say that Nelson "forged" the entry, but that's because Brietbart believes that the entire entry was not written by Moore. The likes of Ben Shapiro, on the other hand, can't wrap their heads around why Brietbart would call it a forgery when Nelson now says that she added notes to it. Shapiro argues that adding notes is not the same as forgery, but Shapiro is too shallow to see that the rest was also written by someone who was not Moore. Shapiro is a little young, anyway. It's in the "D.A.", Mr. Shapiro. That's where you will find the truth.

So, you see, it's the FBI versus Christians who speak out for God's laws. And guess what, we win hands down with the FBI's current leadership being thrown like garbage into the Lake of Fire. That's because we are people of truth. So be of the Truth, and not of the Republicans, and you won't go wrong.

Moore is one of the southerners, like so many Christians, who support the military. I'm assuming that the reason for this is that there are many Christian young men in the military, and that the traditional view of the military still prevails in Christian minds. But the military today is run by the very deep state that despises both Moore and God, and probably plots to put Christians on the front lines. So, the only conclusion we can make is that Christians want to take the U.S. military back from the wicked. But that can never happen, in my opinion, in the very last days. It's time to call out the military leadership in the way that the CIA and FBI are being railed against. What difference do we expect between the military leadership and the rotten, false-mouthed CIA? They have got to be one cloth.

Jay Sekulow disappoints me in this area. He's of the opinion that Muslim terror in the West is a real thing. I honestly cannot understand how a mind like Jay's, who's up to speed on things, can't yet fathom that the deep state he opposes has been conducting false-flag terror events. I don't know Moore's position on whether he accepts false flags, but my bet is that he's taking Sekulow's position, essentially, which is Trump's position too, that the terror actually exists and needs to be conquered with a ramped-up military. This move actually frightens me because it promises more Middle-East intrusions. Trump is walking the fence on ramped-up Mid-East intrusion, and may be failing to see that the military is one cloth with the CIA. You can be sure that achieving one-cloth has been the CIA task for at least the past four, even five, decades.

Judgment on the CIA would be sweet to see, but I don't think I'm going to give myself any illusions that all of America is about to be cleansed, even if God is now exposing the evil underpinnings. Trump has in fact supported the deep state's right to spy (so ironic and idiotic all at once) with greater powers, and it is this very thing that accelerates political corruption. Trump tweets about the fall of political enemies, but when will he start to throw light on the spy powers for spy-powers' sake? In God's righteousness we trust, because Trump is a mere man of the world. Trump had best not take credit for God's work. Indeed, Trump's justice team has been running last in the race to cleanse, and no one has been inspired to give it such credit, except on the immigration front. Will Trump thank others better than his justice department for the fortunes he's now experiencing? I do think that he has some morality, or a respect for right and wrong, but, by-and-large, he's tainted heavily with this world, and moulded by it to respect personal ambition. He claims to be running the country for the peoples' sake, but Obama said the same. Actions alone speak on that claim.

Have you seen the mock-porno photo of Al Franken in diapers and holding a Teddy bear? What a disgusting animal (not the bear) in high places. But this past week, down Franken went in the humiliation he sought to avoid.

In Pensacola (beside Alabama, probably no coincidence) late this week, Trump asked the people to get out and vote for Roy Moore because he's for "make America Great again." That's what Trump said, thinking of his own agenda, not what Moore has in store, in his commitment to Jesus, for example. Trump was full of himself in that pitch. Let the Christian people vote for Moore for Moore's sake, not on the basis that he supports Trump the Gentile dog. Does the world of politics revolve around you, Mr. Trump, in making America "great"? What does that mean, anyway? What about "make American honest again"? What about "make America humble again"? Moore wants to see America Godly again, but the president has never said that. That's because he's an outsider to Jesus. No, Mr. Trump, you go support Moore, not he you. The people of God will supersede you, and already supersede you. We are children of a real king, a commander that you can't defeat, and you can't make Him your servant for all that revolves around your agendas. I'm not speaking to Trump, because he's not going to be reading this. I'm speaking to Christians who almost worship him. Stop already.

The phrase, "America is great," is unsightly to God. God wants no man to speak of his greatness, and no collection of men, who constitute a country, to say the same. Greatness is Godliness. There is nothing else that is great. Everything that man deems great is a stench in God's view. It will all be toppled, never to arise again. But here's Trump equating wealth with "great again." What a spiritually bankrupt man.

It's important to understand God. He sees all, and when he sees a man out for self, it's disgusting in His sight. This is why Jesus' job is to make us concerned for others, at least as well as ourselves. Yes, we look after our own concerns, and the reason, probably, that Jesus tells us not to worry about them, is so that we can grow more as he wishes, with concerns for others. Try it, just try it. Get a glimpse of what Jesus wants in this regard. It's immature to be self-centered, and mature to be otherwise.

It's big to be able to care for others as a rule. If the Spirit is in you, it may be more your trait than you realize. The Spirit can abide within us more pleasurably if we are not me-me-me, and He can't work with the latter. We have a deep heart for the babies being tortured to death in the womb. We are in their shoes, and we feel the evil done against them. The wicked do not feel this way; they obviously have no heart for the pains of the vulnerable, the defenseless, the miracle of humanity. They do not consider humanity with the same high value as Spirit-dwelt people, yet even Jesus downgrades the humanity that rejects the Spirit. It will be treated as garbage to be burned, a very serious matter.

If we care about humanity, don't we also care about God? Ahh, to train the heart to be outward toward others, that is the reason for all existence. And the way I see it, God will later make even the hearts of animals care for one another as a reflection of that which permeates his Kingdom. God needs no concerns from us because He has all He needs, yet God wants to be included in our thoughts. We are to be concerned with what concerns Him, the condition of our hearts. Salvation, says the New Testament, is a basic teaching that we must move on from, like from 101 to advanced topics. Salvation is not the end-game. There is a reason that we are saved, and that's to change the heart, first and foremost by recognizing the example of Jesus to lay down his life for our concerns, our benefits. It's perfect, for when God does a thing, he does it with perfection. No aspect of anything is hidden from his sight. He sees the entire elephant all at once, and never neglects any consideration when building a thing.

Self-sacrifice says it all. Synergism is swell, but nothing beats self-sacrifice. Trump may be synergistic toward the cause of Christians, but that's not self-sacrifice. A common example of synergism is the bird eating the fleas off the back of a hippo. It happens to be welcomed by the hippo, but the bird is not really doing it on behalf of the hippo. Trump may be doing some things that advance Christianity by the fact that our liberal enemies are being thwarted to some large (or maybe not so large) degree, but does he truly care for God's people? Ask what he just said about Roy Moore in Pensacola? And why did he go to Pensacola? Because he truly cares for Moore's success / agenda?

Trump campaigned against Moore a couple of months ago. Trump now supports Moore because there is no other viable candidate to replace him, and so Trump wants purely his senate seat. Trump made that obvious, making no bones about it. If I were Moore, I would be feeling very cheap in Trump's eyes right now. Thanks, Mr. Trump, for coming down, but no thanks, you flea-eating bird.

Some of the biggest hypocrites of the year look to be the Republican National Committee: "McConnell dropped the expulsion talk [against judge Moore], which was designed to force Moore out of the race. He now says Alabama voters should 'make the call' on sending him to the Senate. And the RNC has restored its financial support." McConnell and the RNC are such obvious snakes, to passionately ram Moore to the wall, seeking his political death, and then to support him in the end with just one week to go before the election. It's mind-boggling. Can the RNC do anything good? It's not a wonder that liberalism has prospered beyond our expectations, with the RNC the only massive competitor. America needs more-moral people than the RNC has to offer.

When Trump announced recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, it was synergistic at best, so far as God is involved, but may have shown some genuine concern for Netanyahu's modern Israel, though not much concern for the ancient Concept of Israel as pertains to Abraham and king David. The latter conquered Jerusalem, when it first came to be called, Zion.

Yes, Trump is synergistic toward modern Israel when he says that the Palestinian peace process must include the open admission that Israel can have a capital in West Jerusalem. This is a flea-clearing event for Netanyahu's back because it tends to decide the issue of West Jerusalem for Israel's part of the peace deal. The fleas are jumping all over Netanyahu's back, however, and biting harder and deeper as result of Trump's announcement, tending to reveal that the Palestinians never did want, as part of the "peace negotiations," Israel in any part of Jerusalem.

Did Trump make this announcement because he genuinely cares for the Netanyahu side of modern Israel? The alternative may be that he did it to score personal points with conservative-Christian voters. This group far outnumbers the Jewish-American vote, should the latter gang up on Trump over this. It's a political-win move for Trump, especially as Christians are showing that they will support Trump in his synergistic (lip-service at best) support of them. However, Trump learned in Alabama that Christians there won't favor him over Moore.

The Arabs are claiming to be in rage because Trump's announcement shows American bias toward Israel. In other words, the Palestinians have long been seeking to use the peace process to win American bias toward them, and to the point of forcing a Palestinian state. This almost happened under Obama, but not even he had the support for such a drastic move. Obama has maybe done more than speak out against Trump this past week; it's an opportunity for Obama to worm his way into this issue through UN (official or otherwise) agencies, for the UN opposes Trump's announcement, and will not recognize an Israeli capital in Jerusalem.

So, it seems certain that Trump is synergistic for Christians where it's Trump versus the UN, especially as Obama has been feared to be pro-UN to the point of wanting to make the USA a child of a UN master.

People are tracking how genuine Trump's announcement was. For example, Trump's state department failed to answer questions on whether Jerusalem is in Israeli or Palestinian territory, as per the view of peace negotiations. In the best light, this refusal can be seen as the state department allowing for the possibility that the process will allow the swallowing of West Jerusalem into official Palestinian-state territory, but that is such a pipe dream that we wonder why it would be left open as a possibility by the United States under Trump. The Free Beacon has a headline, "U.S. Still Won't List Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital on Official Docs, Passports, Maps." Story here:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-still-wont-list-jerusalem-israels-capital-official-docs-passports-maps/

The Beacon has first-hand information for making the quote above, and adds, "The State Department's careful parsing of the issue has already drawn outrage on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers are describing this as part of an effort to undermine the Trump White House's clear-cut declaration on the matter." This can be read as Tillerson versus Trump. It can be read that Tillerson is of the other cloth, the one opposed by Christians. Trump did not choose many leaders favorable to Christians, that we know. So long as Trump seeks to win the Christian vote, we will see who is and isn't on the Christian side of things. This apparent Tillerson beef with Trump can explain why there were reports about Tillerson's resignation in January. Perhaps Tillerson convinced Trump to add, in his speech, that the peace process will yet go forward red-hot unto the Palestinian state.

It's important to know that many Israelis are for a Palestinian state, so much so that they have the Haaretz media on their side. I can't come to any conclusion other than that these Israelis fear no God while deceived into believing that lasting peace with Palestinians will be greatly facilitated if Israel just cuts out for them their own country. This is where we are in the run-up to Prophecy, with a good portion of Israel, and much of the liberal West, keeping prophecy at bay by giving Palestinians hope in proximity to the near future. I don't foresee Trump adding any more aggravation to the process...unless by a miracle-like situation he actually begins to openly undermine the Palestinian state as a whole. That's what I mean by "more aggravation."

It's possible that Trump will become so disgusted with the tactics, jabs, arguments, spin and tricks used by his Western opponents, and even those of his state-department employees, that he will be moved to speak out against the Palestinian state. If Trump does this into the 2020-24 stretch, that's when we've really got to lay off the world and watch out for Prophecy.

The Beacon adds: "With regards to U.S. passports for Americans born in Jerusalem, there will be no formal change in American policy on the matter." That is, the passports will not say born in "Jerusalem, Israel." I don't know what the passports have said until now as per American policy, but it seems that Trump's state department anticipates a Palestinian state SOON...meaning that it's trying hard to accomplish one. Our trick is to discover whether this policy is that of Trump's secretly while he pretends to be impartial and even pro-Netanyahu. Trump's announcement that it will take some four years to build the embassy, which can easily be excused for taking six, may be a ruse where Trump knows of, and advocates for, a hard push for a PA state before 2020. I'm keeping an eye of Trump's attitude here.

As I remember it, Obama didn't even visit Israel in all his eight years, and snubbed Netanyahu when he came to Washington. If this, in 2017, were president Clinton one year in, we would be seeing the tip of her whip snapping at Netanyahu's nose. That's the difference between a Clinton win and a Trump win, and Christians are indeed asking whether it was a God-move to make Trump win. Yes, very possibly, to keep prophecy at bay, right? No, not necessarily. As we can see, a pro-Netanyahu president can bring prophecy on just as well as an Obama / Clinton presidency.

It depends not on when satan gives the word, for Paul tells us that satan will be always trying but always restrained by God, until God chooses the time. It is questionable as to whether Trump acts as part of the Restraining, or part of the Time Arrived, or the third option: mainly unrelated altogether to prophetic fulfillment. I would like my job a lot better if I knew the Date.

I usually ignore websites claiming a coup on Trump because they often sound based on hearsay. But the following story, which promises deep state versus deep state, is so Maxwell Smart that it's funny if it isn't true. Imagine if this were the truth:

The Trump administration is considering a set of proposals developed by Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a retired CIA officer — with assistance from Oliver North, a key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal — to provide CIA Director Mike Pompeo and the White House with a global, private spy network that would circumvent official U.S. intelligence agencies, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials and others familiar with the proposals. The sources say the plans have been pitched to the White House as a means of countering “deep state” enemies in the intelligence community seeking to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency.

...“Pompeo can't trust the CIA bureaucracy, so we need to create this thing that reports just directly to him,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official with firsthand knowledge of the proposals, in describing White House discussions. “It is a direct-action arm, totally off the books,” this person said, meaning the intelligence collected would not be shared with the rest of the CIA or the larger intelligence community. “The whole point is this is supposed to report to the president and Pompeo directly.”

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/04/trump-white-house-weighing-plans-for-private-spies-to-counter-deep-state-enemies/

Wow, what a great fictional novel in the makings. Or, couldn't something like it be true? One could almost expect it, though I'm not yet willing / ready to believe that Pompeo is a loyal Trumpist. In entertaining this, won't North and Prince want something in return for their successful services? Who do they work for in foreign affairs? The article adds: "According to two former senior intelligence officials, Pompeo has embraced the plan and lobbied the White House to approve the contract. Asked for comment, a CIA spokesperson said, 'You have been provided wildly inaccurate information by people peddling an agenda.'" Or, to the contrary, the "private spies" are setting a trap for Trump, and Pompeo is part of setting it. Their goal would be to make Trump go for this, then leak it in the press.

Below is CNN's show (and an excellent article) with an admittedly-false "exclusive" story (allows us to see CNN fabricating a story in-action). Note the lack of emotion in the accusers, because they probably suspect (or know) that this story is baseless. It appears that CNN is creating "justification" for its existence at this time, but I say shoot the sick horse, put it out of its misery:
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

The Washington Post refused to go along with the CNN hoax, very-possibly due to its own recent scandal when, for example, bringing forward a false, Democrat witness claiming a criminal-rape attempt on her by judge Moore. The Post was then caught making computer calls to people in Alabama, offering thousands of dollars to any women who would accuse Moore of a sex scandal. In other words, the Post could not afford risking complicity with the CNN hoax, once the Post found the error of CNN's story. The Post was compelled to do a story on it because it was framed as a bombshell i.e. that all avid Democrats wanted to read about, and so, thanks probably to the Moore story, the Post stabbed CNN in the back. If the Post had run with the hoax too, there's no telling how far the story would have gotten.

And by the way, Fox came out to say that their poll had Moore down by 10 points the day before the election. Not sure what that could be in the Fox-motive department. On the same day, this came out: "A new Emerson Poll released on Monday shows that conservative Republican Roy Moore has increased his lead over liberal Democrat Doug Jones to 9 points..." On the same day, Fox had a headline: "Why conservatives should not vote for Roy Moore". It sounds like the Fox is one of the establishment frogs upon the lilypads. Yes, that makes sense, Fox, the Godless Conservative, but desiring the Christian viewer for to get higher ratings = more money.

From the article above:

Here is just a sample of incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be corrected, walk-backed, or retracted...

Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter (Wash Post)
An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin agents (Wash Post)
WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
Crowdstrike finds Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets, echoing Homeland Security)
Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund under investigation (CNN)

The big media are destroying themselves because they have decided to announce the false reports of the CIA / FBI / NSA. Eventually, the big bosses of the big media will betray these organizations, we may assume, as pay-back for playing with fire to destroy media credibility. Imagine how many false stories there are annually for which no evidence is found or spread that they were fabricated in the first place.

I am so glad that I decided to surf for new Christian music, spending the entire Saturday off the rotten-news topics. Here's a musical couple that you may enjoy, where the wife wears no make-up, so unusual today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MQBIfn_IF4

She and her husband have what looks like about an hour of youtube song, if you're interested. Spend a few hundred dollars and get yourself some great music speakers to enjoy free youtube music. Download the songs (mp3 format) to your downloads folder using this easy youtube downloader. Choose mp4 (takes up much more computer space) to download as videos, but they may not go to your downloads folder, but rather straight to your video package:
http://srv10.youtubemp3.to/process.php

I have a small beef with the man above, which you can see in the video below, where he says that he started to monetize his youtube videos. In the end, he says he's made a little over $100 over an unsaid period of time. He doesn't give the reason that he's doing it, aside from saying, "because we can." But why not make ZERO dollars so that he can claim the higher road? Why confound it for a few bucks? It seems a foolish decision to me. I appreciate his work online, but, later, once the money-intake grows, it will act to entangle their ministry in conflict of interest. I also have a question as to why the Exxon sign is showing clear above his shoulder (planned or coincidental?). Does it make money, and is this going to be a trend in his videos? Will the number of videos, and half the motive be, to make more money? I find this to be a dangerous policy for Christians, with the possibility of tossing out their Heavenly rewards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGh7zFFzGbU

The couple appears on a video (below) with homesteaders off the grid, people that were recently city slickers like me. But they are really living the life; I'm not doing it at all at this time (i.e. no animals, no vegetable gardens, that is), though I might be soon. The homesteaders say they have been on youtube for three years, and so the question is whether youtube will act as a great means of some income for homesteaders? Can they make enough to support their off-grid lifestyles, that must be their question. The problem is, do they USE God for this task, and does God appreciate being used in this way? It's a very-good and relevant question right now. But if they make videos (with ads) to share their off-grid experiences, or something not involving Spirituality, then I say, great, no problem. But I as a post-tribulationist would never seek to make money on off-grid videos, because, for me, that's a work I consider to be for God (I can trust God to get me by without such income). When I get my house finished, hopefully within a year (don't quite have the money to do it), I will seriously entertain ad-less youtube. My claim, very correct for the most part, is that ads on youtube are paid by general consumers i.e. you and me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy2g_SM82wE

My plan, at this time, is to finish the upper floor sufficient that I can rent my lower floor and live in the upper nearly finished. Rental income here would roughly take care of my entire monthly bills. I haven't worked a contracting business since arriving here. A little work on the side now, and retirement money in a few years, will more than look after all my needs. I may still be living in "poverty," however, just as God likes it. There won't be a large batch of money to drive me away from Closeness to Him.

I now know what it's like to have a large batch of money. About ten years ago, I had nearly $400,000 in a bank account, a very new thing for me. Believe it or not, it wasn't enough to finish this house because living expenses ate much of it up. Tested with all that money, I didn't visit prostitutes, I didn't go back to the bars to party, I didn't buy a world-class car, and I used the money wisely because I always knew it wasn't enough for the house. From the near-start of having that cash, I was able to do a roughly full-time online job, at home, that I hoped was for God, which had been my general prayer from something like my first year of conversion. I reasoned: why work for things that spoil? Why not work full time for God, if I'm going to work all day at all? Can this become your mentality too? Or does God not give it to everyone? Probably not. Watch yourself, because you don't want to appoint yourself to a full-time job for God that he hasn't given you. But, if you're like me, you'd rather gamble that God will be with you on whatever you chose to do for Him, than to live a regular job where the only reward is the paycheck. If God is not in it, it should show, and vice-versa. It's better to try "losing your life" than not to try at all.

I went out to the country to set myself up on a tract of land (much larger than a city lot) that has heating needs (trees), water needs, and food-garden needs. I'm an experienced builder that could bang out a house, but, I reasoned, in case there was no tribulation period, I needed to build a house that is, not too-cheaply built, but sellable in case I needed to build another one for income (use the proceeds on the sale to buy food while building another house). As it's turning out, I may remain here because it has a means to supply my monthly needs. Therefore, the thing to do, once it's finished, is to work the soil to see what sorts of food it will grow. I've already tried it in two years, and have a good idea of what I'm up against. There are several pit falls to deal with.

I once owned chickens (no major problem), and lived on a place that kept goats so that I could see first hand what it entails. I don't relish building a large fence, but God made nature in such a way that requires one these days, if we want to avoid grocery purchases. It's a very-big question as to whether one should spend the money and hard work building a fence to keep deer and other plant eaters out while keeping in the goats / sheep? Deer need a steel fence about eight-feet high, to make matters worse...or an all-night watchman (a dog could work) at the garden. There are some dogs that you can't keep from barking two or more hours nights if you leave them chained outdoors, just so you realize. Neighbors may complain and put your watchdog out of service. There's a weed = complication in everything we do to grow our own foods, our Eden curse.

My goal may not necessarily become a wholly self-sufficient lifestyle. The goal is to prepare the ability to use my place for survival, for up to a few years, in case of a crisis / disaster. If I had a forewarning of the timing of the crisis, I could maybe buy extra foods beforehand and forgo the deer fence and goats. There's the crux of my decision yet to make. I happen to be one that watches for the coming crisis seen in Revelation 12 and 13. In chapter 12, the woman is a symbol of the people of Jesus generally, and we read that this woman is nurtured by God for more than three years, in the wilds. We can glean that this time period is synonymous with the coming 666, which won't allow Christians to make purchases. We are not told that we can't buy food at that time, but, apparently, our worldly masters will provide exactly that terrible situation. It means that God will need to step up to bat for our cause, and, in the end, the bat ends up across the head of the snake. Weeds, yes, but victory too.

The house is a couple of hundred feet from a pond formed from a source of running (i.e. fresh) water. I have enough trees to provide heat for many years, but we can glean already that the government "environmentalists," when they decide to enforce their 666, will try to keep us from cutting precious trees down. It's a good reason to buy a property where trees are ample, not precious at all. The more dead trees on the property, the better, especially hardwoods, because they take many years to become useless for wood stoves. The environmentalists can't force us not to cut dead trunks. And, just as we can purchase extra food before the crisis, so we can purchase firewood for a few years in advance. But in order for this to work well for us, we have got to know the timing of the 666's enforcement.

So, the trick-dickies, who will promote the woman's persecution partly by forbidding her to make purchases, may want to avoid introducing the 666 on an optional level, if they can do it that way, to keep us from knowing the time. The good news is that it's very difficult for them to move from a credit / debit card to a skin-based method of purchasing without first having it out as a trial balloon = optional basis. In that way, we at least get to know that the tribulation is close. Or can we? Not necessarily. What if the optional period lasts for 20 or 30 years? How can that help us to avoid the pitfall of buying foods and firewood too early, wasting much of our money?

I have a better idea. When the optional skincode is in use, and when it's spreading to the point that can be deemed prophetic fulfillment, we then need to watch Middle-East prophecy. And the thing to look for is the fulfillment of Daniel 11:21-25. Unfortunately, these few verses do not state the length of time from start to finish of the events therein, but they culminate in a successful invasion on Egypt from a small power starting in the very Syrio-Iraqi area that ISIS ruled a few years ago. They are now saying that ISIS has been defeated to more than 90 percent it's previous territory. Iraq announced this week that their war is over. And the Russia military said this past week that ISIS is finished in Syria, though Teresa May disagreed, of course.

The five verses tell that a rejected one will seize, by craft, a region between Baghdad and Antioch. This was the domain of the ancient Seleucids, and the man I refer to, introduced at verse 21, is shown to be an extension of the Seleucids. Prophecy writers, especially the erroneous pre-tribulationists, insist that verses 21-25 pertain to an ancient Seleucid king (Antiochus IV), but the wiser reader will see that the same king at verse 21 is the one at verse 31 while 31 is definitely the end-time anti-Christ spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24:15, and by Daniel at 9:27. Therefore, God slips over from the ancient situation to the end-time situation at verse 21, and seems into be saying that the territory ruled by the ancient Seleucids will be ruled by the one in 21. It's a perfect description of the area ruled by ISIS a few years, which indeed started as a small power, relatively speaking. And it's leader is now smaller still, almost wiped out, begging whether the anti-Christ of 21 will come in to fill the vacuum.

The five verses tell us that the king of 21, before he becomes the king, is rejected by the voters. It's made clear that he does not rise to power by the regular method, but seizes his kingdom-to-be through craft, and then pays off his small body of soldiers in order to grow into a larger band of military thieves. He grows because God gives him success (gleaned from other scriptures). Whereas ISIS fighters have been demoralized by loss after loss, steadily, the one of 21 will find success, and therefore the fighters will gravitate to him. For all we know, he's worming himself into power now amongst certain fighters. The five verses tell us that he rises thanks to military losses of two allies. He takes the opportunity to attract the two losers to himself. In the past, I identified the two losers as the Iraqi Baathists and al-Qaeda, but it may be time to update that view soon. It's best to just wait and see. We might now theorize that the two losers are ISIS and al-Qaeda, or ISIS and the Iraqi Baathists (they had both conquered Mosul together).

However, in the past, I identified one of the losers as the Iraqi nation as a whole, which, at the time, was the Baathists. It seemed logical that the Iraqi nation was one of the losers because it was defeated by a military flood, which is found in verse 22. But if it was not yet prophetic fulfillment, then another view is possible where the official Iraqi nation is not one of the two losers. I apologize for the complications. One thing seems certain, that he takes a kingdom where he's not been granted the official position, and this sounds as though he takes an official nation, yet, on the other hand, ISIS can now be viewed as a nation.

As things now stand, his kingdom may be what ISIS once held, and not Baghdad. But once the details of the prophecy get too hard to decipher, can the prophecy still act as a solid Sign? If there are too many interpretations, how can we bank on it's acting as our prime Sign that the anti-Christ is involved? It just seems logical that the swept-up (defeated) army of 22 is the same neo-Seleucid kingdom which he seizes, but, perhaps, we need to allow for their not being the same entity. The rise in the neo-Seleucid empire seems certain, but does it include Baghdad? Does he take Baghdad too, or not? I once thought so, and ISIS did in fact try to take it. We can assume that the Iraqi Baathists want Baghdad back.

The good news is, there is no way to interpret Daniel's "king of the south" (verse 25) other than Egypt. Therefore, in whatever specific way the neo-Seleucid kingdom goes into the anti-Christ's hand, we will have verse 25 as the SOLID SIGN we can depend on. Hopefully, verse 25 is fulfilled, as I think it will (gambling here), as many as three years before the woman in Revelation 12 needs wilderness survival. If, when Egypt is defeated, we can look back and work out a good case of fulfillment for verses 21-23, we will probably be in the last seven years.

The best human prediction, at this time in history, for the details behind the attack on Egypt is that the anti-Christ stands behind Gaza, supporting it against Egypt. The more that the United States receives the blessings of Egypt, the more that the anti-Christ may try to defeat Egypt. If the Egyptian government accepts Jerusalem as the Israeli capital without kicking up dust, it compliments this prophecy. In this picture, the anti-Christ is not an American, and not supported by America, though his support from Obama and other world-class liberals can be half expected, perhaps even from the CIA.

I assume that verses 22-23 are an alternative explanation (i.e. a repeat of the situation with extra detail) for verse 21:

21 And a rejected one shall stand up in his place, and they shall not give to him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smooth talk.

22 And the forces of the overflow will be swept from before him, and they will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant.

23 And after they join him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people.

It appears that the end of 21 is repeated in 23 with slightly different terms. For example, the "smooth talk" of verse 21 becomes "deceit" in verse 23. And the "enter" of verse 21 becomes "he will come and be strong with a few people" in verse 23. In fact, note the comparison below:

VERSE 21: "he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom smoothly."

VERSE 24: "With ease, even into the rich places of the province, he will enter."

I think it's wise, at this point, to theorize that the two broken entities that were run-down militarily are those of ISIS and its main ally. In other words, just in case this is correct, we would be looking for a man, not at war, to worm his way into a leadership position that includes leadership over the remnants of ISIS and/or their Baathist partners. The Western media may not publish this because it may tend to publish only war reports, and, besides, such a three-way partnership may be kept under the radar by the parties for some time.

The Sunni who had banded around ISIS are desperate at this time for a strategy to regain power. They need a new glue, to hold their fighters with them, from something other than retaking major parts of Iraq / Syria. Probably, they were able to do so only because Obama funnelled money and weapons to it. But that may not be available now, though we have yet to see what Saudi Arabia does under its new king. The new glue may be anti-Israelism. It's the obvious glue at this very time. If the movement, started this past week against Jerusalem, gets hard traction, the anti-Christ, if he's already in a position to exploit, may use it to form a new bond between Sunni fighters. The thing to watch is the anti-Israeli sentiments amongst the Sunni.

The unofficial, self-appointed leader of the anti-Jerusalem "rage" at this time in the Turkish leader, Recep Erdogan, and he has a red phone to ISIS and similar Sunni groups. For it's part, the CIA gets to overlook, and even to oversee to a degree, see the Iraqi terrain in this post-war period:

The United States-led coalition will retain forces in Iraq following the battlefield defeat of ISIS and the destruction of its self-styled caliphate in order to stabilize the war-wrecked state..

...The US-led coalition is already beginning to help Iraq prepare to counter what looks to be an upcoming ISIS insurgency which could prove deadly if not properly dealt with soon, something that would undermine those prior combined Iraq, Kurdish and coalition efforts to destroy the group.

http://www.rudaw.net/english/analysis/10122017

That was written (on behalf of Kurdish issues) late this week on Sunday. The underlying truth is simply that the United States wants to stay in Iraq, number one, and, as we can see, the scaaary ISIS monster is about to raise its ugly head again, according to the Americans...that run with this picture constantly. Even while ISIS has been debilitated, yet it can now arise again "deadly." Well, yes, it can, but the CIA may not actually believe it as much as it uses it for its ruse.

We want to know what this "upcoming ISIS insurgency which could prove deadly" is. Why is it already "upcoming." Who has predicted it that way, and based on what information? I don't know. I haven't heard because I've been neglecting regular Middle-East news.

This is something we could watch:

After ISIS claimed responsibility for Sunday's truck attack in Jerusalem, Gaza's governing authority heaped praise on the attackers. But Hamas is ceding power [to ISIS] fast.

That article if from early in 2017, and so the truth may be that ISIS holds superior power in Gaza. I can't see any ISIS powers in current Gaza as formidable enough to conquer Egypt, but this new authority there may indicate a movement in that direction. Logical: the main military thrust comes from neo-Seleucia, and uses Gaza as its military base. How else can it defeat Egypt? Hamas has long been at war with West-friendly Egypt. Theory: Obama helped to set up the terror wing of Muslim Brotherhood between Gaza and Cairo after Sisi toppled the Brotherhood government of Egypt. Everything logical is on the table for making predictions. The following 2015 article by foreignaffairs.com lays out a new scenario for Israel:

One month ago, the Islamic State (also called ISIS) released a video message to the people of Palestine. The video, in which ISIS members urged Palestinians to remain patient as they actively fight for the caliphate, included a rare public reference to clashes in Gaza between suspected ISIS affiliates and Hamas earlier this year. The clashes were triggered by a mixture of factors [= excuses], including the ongoing [Israeli] siege of Gaza, the area’s increased isolation from Egypt, and Hamas’ poor record of governing. With violence apparently increasing in the Palestinian territories —- to the extent that some observers have even speculated about the possibility of a third intifada and potential power vacuum —- the question of ISIS’ real intentions in the region has never been more pressing.

ISIS has the purpose of swallowing many Arab fighters for its Middle-East power-gobbling agenda. But the monster has been stilled since that article was written. We now wait longer. I'm so tired of waiting because I need to write about the developments, and I can think of better things to do than to cover a wicked group of Muslims with no morality but the morality it feigns to justify a religious bull-dozing village after town and city.

My point in quoting the article above is to show that ISIS has already uses Palestinian woes to its advantage. Why shouldn't we expect the same now? Israel's pro-Palestine Haaretz media, about two years ago, repeated that ISIS and Palestinians do not bond. It doesn't promise an ISIS infiltration of Palestinian issues. Haaretz repeated that ISIS is not much of a threat to Israel, but this could be the voice of satan for the ultimate ambush of Israel.

How and why ISIS talks about Palestine are questions that should matter to Palestinians, especially since ISIS has been active in framing the new upheavals in Palestine of the past months in its propaganda and applauding stabbing attacks as part of its Salafi-jihadi creed...

While it is difficult to establish with absolute certainty how ISIS thinks about Palestine [faking support?]...

Firstly, Palestinians have not been significantly over-represented in al-Qaeda, either in the ranks of low level recruits or among its political ideologues...

The opportunism [sounds like fakery] is further highlighted by the fact that ISIS only talks about four elements of the Palestine question: Gaza, Jerusalem, the recent stabbing attacks, and internal Palestinian politics. In total, it has dedicated at least 29 online statements to these issues since May 2015, most of these being video messages. The issues discussed in the messages often overlap; Gaza was mentioned in 19 messages, Jerusalem in 18, and 15 messages discussed the stabbing attacks, the latter all published in October 2015. When it comes to internal politics, Hamas is mentioned in every message, while Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (PA) feature 15 times. Numbers, however, do not convey the way in which ISIS discusses these themes.

https://al-shabaka.org/commentaries/understanding-isiss-palestine-propaganda/

It sounds as though the stabbings were used by ISIS to gain a sudden welcome into Palestinian politics. But why? Isn't it because ISIS wants additional recruits on the lure of ideological opposition to the West? Yes, and it could care less for Palestinian "rights" in Israel. I don't need to demonize ISIS, they do a great job all by themselves. The article says that ISIS uses the Palestinian glue (my term) merely as its third priority, but, soon, it may become its prime glue when the anti-Christ leads ISIS -- if indeed that's a coming partnership. However, if it matters at all, the anti-Christ may adopt an anti-Israeli banner firstly because ISIS had already used it with promises of success (still to be seen).

The problem is, Daniel 11 doesn't mention the anti-Christ's anti-Israeli spots until verse 28, which can place the anti-Jerusalem thrust very near the compulsory 666. There is only a hint in verses previous to 28 that the anti-Jerusalem thrust is on, but this hint can be captured only by people living today, because we now know that Egypt and Israel are in agreement with the Camp David accords = Egypt's declaration for Israel's right to exist.

By the way, there is always the chance that the 666 will only be local to Israel / Middle-East as opposed to the broader world (the Greek version of Revelation 13 doesn't seem to settle the question). If this is correct. I'm wasting my time on a country property (not totally a waste, as it's nice here).

As I said, I spent Saturday listening to music, and creating another playlist (link in next paragraph) featuring, Selah. Directly below, you can "copy" my older Messianic-Country mix of songs, often on the light-hearted side, but you need to download them individually from YouTube; you can bookmark the page if you haven't the time now: http://www.tribwatch.com/songList1.htm

For the Selah playlist of heavier-hearted songs (lots of feeling), see here:
http://www.tribwatch.com/songListSelah.htm